Is there a way to get grab to work with attacks of opportunity?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

The title says it all, basically. My 6th level Cleric of Gozreh has a Constrictor Snake companion. It was recently pointed out by another player that the snake can't use grab with AoOs because it needs a free action to do so and it is not the snakes turn. This makes sense, but leaves me with the question of how can I finagle it so it can. Or, is this impossible for good reason? I have Boon Companion and the Animal domain, but I really don't have the good animal buffs because I'm a Cleric not a Druid.


What does it's being the snakes turn or not have to do with it if it's a free action?

I mean heck snap shot and combat reflexes work if you can reload as free so I don't see why this would be any different.

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Your fellow player is incorrect. Although normally free actions are restricted to your turn, if a free action is inherently part of another action (such as knocking an arrow for Snap Shot, or a creature with grab getting a free grapple attempt) then it is allowed outside of your turn.

See Action Types.


Snap shot is called to actually work that way, an exception of the rule. Your fellow player is correct as far as I know.

Sczarni

The link I provided above reads otherwise.

Free Action wrote:
Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally

Sczarni

Gregory Connolly wrote:
The title says it all, basically. My 6th level Cleric of Gozreh has a Constrictor Snake companion. It was recently pointed out by another player that the snake can't use grab with AoOs because it needs a free action to do so and it is not the snakes turn. This makes sense, but leaves me with the question of how can I finagle it so it can. Or, is this impossible for good reason? I have Boon Companion and the Animal domain, but I really don't have the good animal buffs because I'm a Cleric not a Druid.

You, or someone, should certainly create a FAQ on when Free Actions can be taken. There are many views on it, two major ones, and it just continues with endless bickering.

I've been told many times that a Free Action can only be on your turn(unless otherwise specified by the ability/feat/etc) and it seems quite reasonable. There are several mixed perspectives on that though.
If that's the case though, releasing the grapple is a free action, and can be done in the middle of someone elses turn right? It just feels like there would be a lot of instability if all free actions were treated as usable outside of your turn(from an AoO or not).
Can we also remove or place our second hand back on or off of our 2h weapon at any time during the round? According to FAQs it's only during your turn.
Can I activate an Cleric Aura(or other ability) if it's a free action outside of my turn if it makes no mention of being able to until a certain trigger is met? It's still a free action and I should have the freedom to do so according to that logic.
Treating it as useable outside of the normal turn is a double-edge sword.
Free Actions are supposedly done inside when you can act normally. Normal means something that occurs regularly or consistently. "conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern". Our normal turn of actions is consistent and predictable as it follows a regular pattern. AoO is obviously inconsistent and out of a regular pattern. To me it doesn't add up right. Of course, that's one out of many views.

Keep in mind I do not know the answer, and I'm merely sharing my opinion purely for the sake of system balance. I'm in no way telling anyone how it does or should work.

Nefreet wrote:

The link I provided above reads otherwise.

Free Action wrote:
Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally

While I don't disagree, I can't agree either. That sentence can be taken in 2 major ways that function differently. We can argue views and opinions all day, but the GM makes the final say-so until a FAQ or reprint of the rules is created.


I think Kaz is correct in that you cannot prove either side.


I can't find any official ruling saying I can or can't do this already. I think it would help. I can't find anywhere where it states that you can only take free actions on your turn. I can however find exceptions that imply it is the case. I also found an FAQ/errata for Snap Shot that implies you always could use it and nothing has changed. So I am kinda lost. I don't want to get in a rules argument with the other player, but I don't like being told I'm wrong with ambiguous proof either. Has PFS made a ruling on this?

Sczarni

The only ruling, is the one Nefreet linked.

Even as the ruling is, a "when you can act normally" isn't defined properly. That is part of the main source of the problem. Some say it's anytime you take any type of action, including a No-Action action. Others say it's when your normally reoccurring turn comes around. Some even say you can just plain take it whenever.

I feel inconsistencies like that, need to be taken into logic and system balance at that point... until there are official answers.

Sczarni

PFS uses the Pathfinder rules set.


Nefreet wrote:
PFS uses the Pathfinder rules set.

And a heap of house rules. Just like any other game.

Sczarni

PFS houserules either help to enforce an equal playing field (such as hit points gained per level) or to conform to the setting (such as no evil characters).

There are very few actual deviances from the base PFRPG rules set.

This is a concept that needs to be explained more often. Practically every day people post rules questions in the PFS forum, and they inevitably get moved back over here. It's a supreme annoyance, for both the PFS crowd and the rules posters themselves. PFS will not (99% of the time) rule differently from what the PFRPG rules already state, but people keep asking "How does PFS handle this?"

The answer is "The same way the PFRPG does".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The Snake's attack is "Bite +A (xdy + Grab)" - Grab is *part* of it's attack, and it gets that attack for AoOs, including Grab. You're fine Gregory.

blahpers wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
PFS uses the Pathfinder rules set.
And a heap of house rules. Just like any other game.

No, it doesn't - you should really stop spreading that rumor, it confuses people. I wish it did have more 'house rules'/restrictions frankly.

Ninja'd by an eloquent Nefreet.


Gregory Connolly wrote:
I can't find anywhere where it states that you can only take free actions on your turn. I can however find exceptions that imply it is the case.

This is the epitome of the Exception that Proves the Rule adage.

Free Actions wrote:

Speak

In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn.

That you're explicitly told that you can speak as a free action, "even when it isn't your turn", confirms the general rule that you cannot take free actions outside of your turn. The Snap Shot AoO FAQ does a similar, though less explicit, this. Unless there's something specifically telling you otherwise, you cannot take a free action outside of your turn.

Outside of that, there's never been any more obvious statement directly saying so.


Majuba wrote:
The Snake's attack is "Bite +A (xdy + Grab)" - Grab is *part* of it's attack, and it gets that attack for AoOs, including Grab. You're fine Gregory.

As for the ultimate purpose of the thread, this is how I see it, too.


Hmm, some say it can and some say it can't. I am guessing that the fact that this situation is ambiguous is why I'm getting more you already can than here's how. I guess people who think it can don't worry and people that think it can't think it shouldn't. I only asked about PFS because I was hoping the situation had come up and been ruled on. I don't play PFS because I don't live near any game stores, not any opposition on my part. I want to get the rules correct more than I want to be able to hide behind the snake effectively.


But as part of my attack, I would like to let go of what I am holding and punch you in the face.

Some say it is clearly allowed as it is part of the attack action used during an Attack of Opportunity.

Others say it is clearly a rules violation as you can't possibly perform a free action to let go of something, you MUST hold on to it until dead, disarmed or it is your turn. Therefore there is NO WAY you can let go of the dragon you were just grappling mid air and was killed by your friend so you now fall 500 feet and take the appropriate damage. I am sorry for your loss.

It gets really tricky, really fast.


Komoda wrote:

But as part of my attack, I would like to let go of what I am holding and punch you in the face.

Some say it is clearly allowed as it is part of the attack action used during an Attack of Opportunity.

Others say it is clearly a rules violation as you can't possibly perform a free action to let go of something, you MUST hold on to it until dead, disarmed or it is your turn. Therefore there is NO WAY you can let go of the dragon you were just grappling mid air and was killed by your friend so you now fall 500 feet and take the appropriate damage. I am sorry for your loss.

It gets really tricky, really fast.

I think much of the "con" argument is that an AoO isn't really "an action", so to speak. So when the rules say you can perform a free action in conjunction with "another action normally", their argument is that the AoO isn't another normal action.

The argument isn't that you can't let go outside of your turn, it's that you cannot expend the free action to make the grab in conjunction with your ordinary attack.

EDIT: Nevermind. I skipped over the ultimate point you were making. herp derp

Sczarni

I'm gathering links and drafting up a question for this topic akin to the FAQ I posted last week. I figure if we got 120+ clicks in a few days maybe we'll get the same for this.

But I won't be able to post it until either tonight or tomorrow (running late for errands already).

Can anyone come up with a solid question and attention-getting title in the meantime?


Nefreet wrote:

PFS houserules either help to enforce an equal playing field (such as hit points gained per level) or to conform to the setting (such as no evil characters).

There are very few actual deviances from the base PFRPG rules set.

This is a concept that needs to be explained more often. Practically every day people post rules questions in the PFS forum, and they inevitably get moved back over here. It's a supreme annoyance, for both the PFS crowd and the rules posters themselves. PFS will not (99% of the time) rule differently from what the PFRPG rules already state, but people keep asking "How does PFS handle this?"

The answer is "The same way the PFRPG does".

A great many of the situations that arise in Pathfinder are not covered by the written rules. Others are only vaguely covered. Still others involve apparent contradictions not easily resolved by "specific trumps general". In these situations, it is the GM's privilege and responsibility to decide how the situation plays out. Not surprisingly, these are the situations that tend to result in confusion and frustration for PFS players if PFS hasn't yet ruled regarding how to handle the situation for PFS games.

Basically, a lot of questions have the answer, "Ask your GM". For those questions, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that one could ask the PFS forums, as for many that is the closest approximation they have to asking the GM. Unless Michael Brock would rather have his inbox flooded even more than it probably is right now. : )

Free actions as part of out-of-turn actions fall in the "apparent contradictions" category of rules issues. One section of the rules states that a character can only perform a free action on her own turn. Another section states that a character can take a free action while taking another action. The Snap Shot feat was problematic regarding taking multiple attacks of opportunity with a projectile weapon until a FAQ ruled that you can reload as a free action while using the Snap Shot feat. It is unclear what other free actions can be taken out of turn due to this "as part of the attack" mechanic.

The developers have not deigned to state a general rule that free actions made as part of a legal attack can be made out of turn (such as the free action to grab), but that seems to be the most consistent way of ruling things--everything falls into place with a minimum of exceptions. So I rule it that way in my games. But another GM can decide otherwise. Both are house rules unless and until the contradiction is officially clarified or errata'd.

Silver Crusade

fretgod99 wrote:
I think much of the "con" argument is that an AoO isn't really "an action", so to speak. So when the rules say you can perform a free action in conjunction with "another action normally", their argument is that the AoO isn't another normal action.

I have always found it odd to consider AoO's anything but "normal". I mean, everybody gets one. There are some incredibly few exceptions that are deliberately spelled out, but it is a mechanic that every creature could potentially take advantage of. If it is something anybody can do, why is it abnormal?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There have been a number of threads on this. I recall that the Rock Catching ability giants have is also a free action. If they can't take that free action when it isn't their turn then the ability is nearly useless. Some might say "RAW is RAW" and shrug that off since Rock Catching isn't a very important ability in the average game. Grab, on the other hand, is a major ability and the source of most PC deaths in many games I've played and run.

Anyhow, I think if an ability gives you a free action to perform some sort of check you should be able to take that free action even when it isn't your turn. Once per round when a Frost Giant is hit by a rock she can attempt to catch it as a free action. If a Purple Worm hits with a Bite it gets a grapple check as a free action. It seems consistent to me and allows both abilities to work the way I'd expect.

Liberty's Edge

There are free actions in some special abilities that are non-sensical if limited to taking place in the acting character's turn only, such as giant rock catching. There are others that are playable either way, such as grab as an AoO. It is a contradictory area of the rules.

PFS houserules largely have to do with character building, item acquisition, and what happens between adventures. There are few if any houserules involving the play at the table itself.


ErrantPursuit wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
I think much of the "con" argument is that an AoO isn't really "an action", so to speak. So when the rules say you can perform a free action in conjunction with "another action normally", their argument is that the AoO isn't another normal action.

I have always found it odd to consider AoO's anything but "normal". I mean, everybody gets one. There are some incredibly few exceptions that are deliberately spelled out, but it is a mechanic that every creature could potentially take advantage of. If it is something anybody can do, why is it abnormal?

It wouldn't be that AoO are "normal"; it's that they're not "actions".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think speaking and snap shot are the only possible exceptions that involve free actions out of your turn. "Rock catching" works best as a readied action.

Prd:
Speak
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You are seriously arguing that rock catching basiclly doesn't work unless somehow the incoming rock was thrown by an attack of opportunity--presumably by another giant with Snap Shot or a readied action--instead of the far more sensible and likely meaning that the special ability granting the free action supersedes the unwritten rule proscribing out-of-turn free actions?


You can ready a free action to use rock catching.

Lantern Lodge

To the OP's original question. I'm not sure if your snake AC qualifies... but the 2nd feat in the snapping turtle style tree allows you to "Whenever an opponent misses you with a melee attack while you are using the Snapping Turtle Style feat, you can use an immediate action to attempt a grapple combat maneuver against that opponent, but with a –2 penalty."

May be that could help?


Nefreet wrote:

The link I provided above reads otherwise.

Free Action wrote:
Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally

Action is a game term.

AoO's are not actions in the sense that move and standard actions are, so no grab.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The grab is not really a 'decision' made by the snake, but is a matter of anatomy, millions of years of evolution giving it backward-pointing teeth in an expandable jaw.
Grabbing is a naturally-occurring potential result, arising from biting an enemy or prey.
Sometimes snakes latch onto things they don't want to latch onto, and choke to death, or die of starvation, unable to detach.

I shouldn't need to ask for permission to roll a grapple check resulting from a constricting snake's bite, any more than I'd need permission to inject poison from a viper's bite.
Both are rider effects, attached to the attack.
Nor should I need to ask if targets slammed by a fire elemental's AoO can catch fire, or targets hit by a wraith's AoO risk a negative level.

This is not a question about adjudicating magical combat; there is no confusion about 'what happens when this thing that doesn't really exist, comes up against this defence that doesn't really exist, in a situation that doesn't really exist?'. When that happens, it's fair to come up with a gamist solution that sounds fair to all parties, and reality be damned.

When an apparent 'rules dilemma' regards real-life, observable actions, and of your two potential rules interpretations, one of which matches real-life observable results, and the other gives results which defy reality, you should rule with the interpretation that matches the real-life, observable result.

TL:DR Snakes grab during attacks of opportunity, because that's how their jaws work in real life.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DEXRAY wrote:

Prd:

Speak
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.

While I may be in favour of some actions taking place when appropriate to the situation, that 'speaking is a free action you can perform when it's not your turn' is an abomination, that needs to be taken round the back of the glue factory, shot in the head, and rendered into the tripe that it is.

Invariably, since 3.0, players have been attempting to take the piss, speaking for longer and longer, expecting a reply (which is also taking longer and longer), then replying to that reply, then replying to the reply to their reply, as if they were at a garden party, reminiscing over cucumber sandwiches, instead of trying to issue tactical orders in the heat of battle.

Last session, a player actually began a debate, in the middle of a monster's full attack, as to whether it was worth spending an immediate action healing ability, or whether it be a waste, and the others began calculating the likely negative hp he would end up on, and suggesting the next blow could still put him beyond the help of breath of life, so he'd do better to save it, get killed to 'minus lots', raised, and healed....

Me: "They're called immediate actions for a reason."
Them: "Yeah, but, just give us some time..." (How long do you need? Should I go on a pizza run?)
"I'm not as wise as my PC, so I should get longer." (<---not the PC being hit)
"We have a telepathic bond, so this conversation only takes milliseconds." (Where does it say that?)

Me: "You've got two seconds to decide if you're using it, before you lose the opportunity, and I take the last attack."
"Grumble, b#&*#, moan"

It's like refereeing for clones of Kanye West.

"I'mma gonna totally let you finish, but first I gotta just say somethin'"
"No, I'mma gonna totally let you finish, but first I gotta just say somethin'"
"No, I'mma gonna totally let you both finish, but first I gotta just say somethin'"


In my opinion an AoO is something like a glancing blow without precision. That is the reason why you can do alot of AoO with Combat Reflexes. Sadly this is only Fluff (or an opinion) and not RAW.

On my table I only allow an attack as an 'Attack of Opportunity'. No combat maneuvers, no other abilities, only an attack. Short and simple.

That solved all of the AoO problems on my table and fits to the Fluff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, thanks for all the help. I suppose the next step is show my GM this thread and ask what he thinks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What fluff does that fit to? AoOs are made at a higher bonus that your first iterative attack. How is it a "glancing blow without precision?"


Eridan wrote:

In my opinion an AoO is something like a glancing blow without precision. That is the reason why you can do alot of AoO with Combat Reflexes. Sadly this is only Fluff (or an opinion) and not RAW.

On my table I only allow an attack as an 'Attack of Opportunity'. No combat maneuvers, no other abilities, only an attack. Short and simple.

That solved all of the AoO problems on my table and fits to the Fluff.

That's certainly your prerogative, but you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And your opinion definitely has no support in either written rule or "fluff"--an attack of opportunity is a chance to gut the opponent while they're distracted and need not be a glancing, non-precision blow.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
fretgod99 wrote:
It wouldn't be that AoO are "normal"; it's that they're not "actions".
wraithstrike wrote:

Action is a game term.

AoO's are not actions in the sense that move and standard actions are, so no grab.

You know, I looked at Actions. An attack is an Action.

Actions in Combat wrote:
Making an attack is a standard action.

Next I looked at Attacks of Opportunity. An Attack of Opportunity is an attack.

Attacks of Opportunity wrote:
An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack

I'm still confused, then, how an attack of opportunity is not an action?

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ErrantPursuit wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
It wouldn't be that AoO are "normal"; it's that they're not "actions".
wraithstrike wrote:

Action is a game term.

AoO's are not actions in the sense that move and standard actions are, so no grab.

You know, I looked at Actions. An attack is an Action.

Actions in Combat wrote:
Making an attack is a standard action.

Next I looked at Attacks of Opportunity. An Attack of Opportunity is an attack.

Attacks of Opportunity wrote:
An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack
I'm still confused, then, how an attack of opportunity is not an action?

That's not one of the things in question anymore. I'm pretty positive I've seen it defined in the past on the forums here, that a No Action still counts as An Action.

It's more about "What is Normally Acting defined as?"

Anyways, since you brought that up, I found a point of interest!!

Action Types
An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, swift actions, immediate actions, and free actions.

In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one swift action and one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action.

In some situations (such as in a surprise round), you may be limited to taking only a single move action or standard action.

Standard Action: A standard action allows you to do something, most commonly to make an attack or cast a spell. See Table: Actions in Combat for other standard actions.

Move Action: A move action allows you to move up to your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time. See Table: Actions in Combat for other move actions.

You can take a move action in place of a standard action. If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move action for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action.

Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions and swift actions (see below). See Table: Actions in Combat for a list of full-round actions.

Some full-round actions do not allow you to take a 5-foot step.

Some full-round actions can be taken as standard actions, but only in situations when you are limited to performing only a standard action during your round. The descriptions of specific actions detail which actions allow this option.

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 decided by the GM.

All of this found Here

Notice the two bolded areas(besides the title)....

It seems we now have defined "taking another action normally"... maybe.

Thoughts and concerns on this?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait, there are actually people who think that creatures with Grab can't use it as part of an AoO?

I am genuinely surprised and bewildered.


My concerns are that we are all reading the same text and coming to different conclusions. There is no game definition of acting normally. There is also no game definition of acting abnormally for that matter. There are rules that refer to acting normally and then there are 2 distinct schools of thought as to what they mean. I read the second bolded area as saying that as long as you are taking actions you can also take free actions. Another player apparently interpreted it as you can take them whenever you want as long as it is your turn, probably for the implied exception in the speaking rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You get bit by the big thingy with sharp pointy teeth you wind up in its mouth.

I don't see why it matters HOW you got in there.

Sczarni

The other day I wrote:
I'm gathering links and drafting up a question for this topic

*cough*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snorter wrote:
Invariably, since 3.0, players have been attempting to take the piss, speaking for longer and longer, expecting a reply (which is also taking longer and longer), then replying to that reply, then replying to the reply to their reply, as if they were at a garden party, reminiscing over cucumber sandwiches, instead of trying to issue tactical orders in the heat of battle.

Agreed. My current group does things like this all of the time. In our last session, one of the PCs was killed. The player of that PC stayed mostly quiet, until the discussion of raising him from the dead took place. He then said something along the lines of "You have to role play a little bit. Realize that if you don't bring me back to life, I can roll up another cleric and come back with new magic items and stuff without having to pay the cost to rez."

I was like "No, that's the exact opposite of role playing."


It's the GM's job to rein that kind of stuff in. If the conversation lasts longer than six seconds, it gets cut off until next round.

And no, the player is not necessarily allowed to roll a new cleric and come in at-level and at-WBL. That's completely up to the GM.


Nefreet wrote:

PFS houserules either help to enforce an equal playing field (such as hit points gained per level) or to conform to the setting (such as no evil characters).

There are very few actual deviances from the base PFRPG rules set.

Uh, wut?

Hahahaaaaa.... seriously?

No crafting. No xp. Prestige. Factions. Etc. Killing an NPC results in them appearing again the next week in the next module... with no recollection that they died, or even by your hands.

PFS has houseruled huge chunks of the game, giant sections completely replaced by their houserules. Fundamental level structure just chopped up and chucked out.

It is comical that anyone could say there are 'very few deviations'. It is fundamentally different.

Sczarni

Banning something is not a deviation from the rules. The rules exist, you're just not open to them.

Switching out one class feature for another, such as a Wizard's Scribe Scroll feat for Spell Focus, is not a deviation from the rules. No rules have changed.

Prestige and Factions are a part of the Pathfinder Society in-game Campaign. They are added features, akin to the optional Called Shot rules in Ultimate Combat. The PFS GM has decided to include these optional, extra rules in his campaign. But no rules have changed. Anyone can add these features to their home campaign as well.

Scenarios, Modules, and APs are not a deviation from the rules.

Condensing XP to 3/level is a change in the rules. Hooray! You win the argument.

Now, about the other 99% of Pathfinder's rules...?


I kind of hope DEXRAY's post was sarcasm. In any event, I clicked FAQ on Nefreet's other thread.

I kind of wish there could be a 2 day convention to clarify and adjust the rules for grappling and other combat maneuvers. At Grab-Con 2014 we could determine whether you can Grab during an AoO and whether keeping somebody Pinned requires picking the "Pin" option every round while maintaining the grapple. Maybe we could even nerf Freedom of Movement to grant a bonus of 10+caster level on CMD vs grappling. Perhaps we could have guest speakers from the world of MMA to give us a real world perspective on grappling. There must be some nerds in the Octagon, right? If nothing else, Arianny would make a very fine "booth girl".

Back in the real world I suppose we'll just have to wait and see if Paizo addresses Grab and maybe Pin in FAQ. It must be slightly (or seriously) annoying to have people constantly agitating for FAQ answers. Grappling is a very important and confusing part of the game though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ErrantPursuit wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
It wouldn't be that AoO are "normal"; it's that they're not "actions".
wraithstrike wrote:

Action is a game term.

AoO's are not actions in the sense that move and standard actions are, so no grab.

You know, I looked at Actions. An attack is an Action.

Actions in Combat wrote:
Making an attack is a standard action.

Next I looked at Attacks of Opportunity. An Attack of Opportunity is an attack.

Attacks of Opportunity wrote:
An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack
I'm still confused, then, how an attack of opportunity is not an action?

An attack on that table is referring to the attack action which is an standard action. An attack is not an action per game term. Different attacks however may require different actions. Don't confuse the game term with the real life term, and Grab is using the game term definition of action.


Nefreet wrote:

Banning something is not a deviation from the rules.

Actually it is. The default game assumes all of the rules in play unless listed as optional. Banning or modifying them means you are not playing by the default rules. I am not saying it is a bad thing since I have never met anyone that played by all of the rules, but if you are not following the book then are you deviating from it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Remy Balster wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
There are very few actual deviances from the base PFRPG rules set.

Hahahaaaaa.... seriously?

No crafting. No xp. Prestige. Factions.

Yep, seriously. And you managed to sum up 90% of the changes in 6 words. Only one of which has any effect on the game during play.

If you don't like the rest (and NPCs being resurrected occasionally in scenarios seasons apart), then you have an issue with the Campaign structure, not the rules.

Devilkiller: it's pretty clear that Pinned is a condition you can grant when you successfully maintain a grapple - it's not removed unless they escape from it, or you cease grappling them. So when you maintain the next round, you can move/damage/tie them instead.

Sczarni

I was actually unaware of the conflict surrounding remaining pinned. I've always ran it that you had to maintain the pin every round until your opponent was tied up (or otherwise subdued). I wrestled in High School (a lifetime ago) and figured this to be the common sense application.

But, just like assuming a wolf could trip during an AoO, real world applications don't always translate well into abstract combat systems.

1 to 50 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Is there a way to get grab to work with attacks of opportunity? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.