Grapple, pin, and tied in one round?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Gauss wrote:
Additionally, Pathfinder Unchained clearly limits Continue (maintain) a Grapple checks to subsequent rounds.

It does not say that.

Gauss wrote:


Finally, the Greater Grapple feat under the stamina rules also states that maintain checks only occur on subsequent rounds and even uses phrasing that indicates that is the normal stance.

I'll give you this one but even if it does unchained just breaks even.

Edit: If I say to you that "At the start of the day you must eat zero or 1 egg". How many eggs can you eat?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

One thing that is never in shortage in gaming communities is people who do want to ruin everybody's fun either by ruining the plan, accusing somebody of acting out of alignment, or by inventing reasons for saying somebody else's character is illegal. If they can't cite the real rules, they invent notions of the designers' intent and act as if that matters. Never mind that nearly everyone I see play the game uses the rules aggressively to create powerful effects.

Ravingdork, you've put out more characters than anybody, surely you've encountered this.

The only thing you can do about it is demonstrate that what you are doing is in keeping with what the rules say, and if it's a PFS campaign, gently remind the GM that you are a paying customer who is obeying the rules.

I see this all the time online, sure, but I don't really see it in person at the table.


Onyxlion, lets try this again:

Pathfinder Unchained p105 wrote:
Continue a Grapple (2 Acts): You continue a grapple. If you initiated the grapple, you must either take this action at the start of each subsequent turn or end the grapple as a free action. When you take this action, you attempt a grapple combat maneuver check with a +5 bonus. If you’re successful, you can either move, deal damage to, or pin the creature you are grappling. Alternatively, you can attempt to tie up the creature with a rope.

What does this bolded line mean? Well, it has several parts

What is "this action"?
Answer: the Continue a Grapple action

Who can perform "this action"?
Answer: The person that initiated the grapple

When do you use "this action"?
Answer: At the start of each subsequent turn

What happens if you don't use "this action"?
Answer: You must spend a free action to end the grapple.

It does not state that you can use "this action" (Continue a Grapple) in the round you initiated the grapple. Because it does not state that, you cannot use it in the round that you initiated the grapple.

This cannot be reasonably read to mean anything else. Now, if you want to use it in the round you initiated the grapple there must be a rule that counters the quoted rule. Do you have such an example?

Pathfinder Unchained, in two places, limits maintaining (continuing) a grapple to rounds AFTER the grapple was initiated.

It is there, black and white.

Now, whether that applies to non-Pathfinder Unchained is up to individuals to decide, but I believe it does provide some context.


Gauss wrote:
This is further shown by the fact that you keep providing irrelevant (to the discussion) rules quotes and debates.

You and I are having 1 debate. What other "irrelevant" debates am I offering? I am being efficient in my use of evidence. I am not quoting irrelevant things, to my knowledge. What have I quoted that is irrelevant?

Gauss wrote:
P.S., I did not state 'the first sentence of the Benefits of Greater Grapple'.

No. You said "first sentence" and you said "Greater Grapple." Logically, I figure that means the first sentence of Greater Grapple, or rather the Benefits section, since it is the Benefits of Greater Grapple that we are talking about. But that didn't really make any sense in the context of what we are talking about. I made a guess, and included a disclaimer that I was guessing at what you were saying.

Gauss wrote:
So please try not to put words into my sentences and thus misread my posts.

Well, what "first sentence" were you referring to? This one?

Greater Grapple wrote:
Once you have grappled a creature, maintaining the grapple is a move action.

Because if that is what you meant by "first sentence," that was my first guess.

I wrote:

I think what you mean is

Greater Grapple wrote:
Once you have grappled a creature, maintaining the grapple is a move action.

If that "first sentence" you were referring to is something else, then I legit have no clue about what you were saying.

Gauss wrote:
My statement was plenty clear in the context of the line of the feat we were discussing.

Yes, it was clearly nonsensical and erroneous in the context of the Feat we were discussing. That is why I put the disclaimer within the discussion, that I was addressing what I honestly thought you meant and not what you really said.

I was earnestly and honestly trying to understand examine, an in this case debate against your arguments.

I did not misread your quotes intentionally. Perhaps I was just that dense, or you were just that inarticulate. Or perhaps it is you who is putting words into my mouth by accusing me of putting words into your mouth!

But in case this is actually a misunderstanding, I apologize for my part in it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gauss wrote:

Onyxlion, lets try this again:

Pathfinder Unchained p105 wrote:
Continue a Grapple (2 Acts): You continue a grapple. If you initiated the grapple, you must either take this action at the start of each subsequent turn or end the grapple as a free action. When you take this action, you attempt a grapple combat maneuver check with a +5 bonus. If you’re successful, you can either move, deal damage to, or pin the creature you are grappling. Alternatively, you can attempt to tie up the creature with a rope.

What does this bolded line mean? Well, it has several parts

What is "this action"?
Answer: the Continue a Grapple action

Who can perform "this action"?
Answer: The person that initiated the grapple

When do you use "this action"?
Answer: At the start of each subsequent turn

What happens if you don't use "this action"?
Answer: You must spend a free action to end the grapple.

It does not state that you can use "this action" (Continue a Grapple) in the round you initiated the grapple. Because it does not state that, you cannot use it in the round that you initiated the grapple.

This cannot be reasonably read to mean anything else. Now, if you want to use it in the round you initiated the grapple there must be a rule that counters the quoted rule. Do you have such an example?

Pathfinder Unchained, in two places, limits maintaining (continuing) a grapple to rounds AFTER the grapple was initiated.

It is there, black and white.

Now, whether that applies to non-Pathfinder Unchained is up to individuals to decide, but I believe it does provide some context.

That line is there solely to show that you must use a grapple action in any round you want to continue grappling nothing more. It sets a minimum not a max nor does it set a time frame. Why? Because it is a singular if statement, it is not tied to the rest of the section nor does it preclude using the rest of the section. Again I ask you "At the start of the day you must eat zero or 1 egg". How many eggs can you eat?


Onyxlion,

I cannot see how you arrive that conclusion. It clearly tells you when to use it. I believe you are reading into it what you want to read into it.

As for your egg question, it is the wrong question. You are asking the equivalent of 'take this action or end the grapple'. Not the equivalent of "if you select this action when do you take this action?".

The actual, relevant, question is "If you select 1 egg, when do you eat the egg?" The answer is "at the start of the day".

Similarly, "If you select "this action" when do you use it? At the start of each subsequent turn."

There is NOTHING here that states you can use it when it is not "the start of each subsequent turn".

Finally, I will ask one more time, please cite the Dev that stated that the wording in Pathfinder Unchained is incorrect. This will be the third time I have asked you since you made the claim.


Gauss wrote:

Onyxlion,

I cannot see how you arrive that conclusion. It clearly tells you when to use it. I believe you are reading into it what you want to read into it.

As for your egg question, it is the wrong question. You are asking the equivalent of 'take this action or end the grapple'. Not the equivalent of "if you select this action when do you take this action?".

The actual, relevant, question is "If you select 1 egg, when do you eat the egg?" The answer is "at the start of the day".

Similarly, "If you select "this action" when do you use it? At the start of each subsequent turn."

There is NOTHING here that states you can use it when it is not "the start of each subsequent turn".

Finally, I will ask one more time, please cite the Dev that stated that the wording in Pathfinder Unchained is incorrect. This will be the third time I have asked you since you made the claim.

Nope as stated it doesn't exclude anything, its a separate sentence. Like in a program if its false it would keep going down the line, as noted by the periods for each terminating statement. It is not a time keeping statement. If it was it would have continued that statement and expanded upon it, it did not.

Also I never said he said it was wrong only he said he really didn't know. I don't know where it's at because its been months and I don't remember which thread it was in the stamina thread or the other grapple thread which is the same old argument.

Do whatever you want, read it, however you want I'm done since its just been the same thing for the past page of posts.


Onyxlion, I begin to see your problem. You are thinking it needs to exclude things. Pathfinder is a game of inclusion. If it doesn't say you can do it, then you cannot without GM fiat.

The rule states when it can be used, it does not need exclusionary text. It is quite clear. It is like most other abilities which state when they can be used, they do not need exclusionary text to indicate the myriad ways they cannot be used.


Gauss wrote:

Onyxlion, I begin to see your problem. You are thinking it needs to exclude things. Pathfinder is a game of inclusion. If it doesn't say you can do it, then you cannot without GM fiat.

The rule states when it can be used, it does not need exclusionary text. It is quite clear. It is like most other abilities which state when they can be used, they do not need exclusionary text to indicate the myriad ways they cannot be used.

I do not see it as statement that controls use only that it forces use under certain conditions. Because if that where the case none of the rules as written would let you make more than one no matter the action cost because you can only do a grapple check at the start of your turn. If that is the case you could only ever take one grapple action.

Edit - Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple)

The above statement as written and through your interpretations means the only grapple check is a maintain and therefore can only happen once no matter what the feats say since there is no other grapple action.


Gauss wrote:

1) Does Greater Grapple apply to all Grapple checks or ONLY maintain checks?

Answer: The feat states that it applies to maintain checks and states that you are allowed to make two checks per round.

No, clearly the Greater Grapple Feat refers to all aspects of Grappling. For starters, take a look at the first sentence of the Benefits section of Greater Grapple

Greater Grapple wrote:
Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to grapple a foe.

That bonus applies to all Grapple checks, including the Initiate check. This Feat is therefore NOT restricted to maintaining a Grapple, but also to Initiating one.

It says you get to make 2 Grapple checks/round to harm your opponent.

Greater Grapple wrote:
This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round

That's really pretty clear. It doesn't say that you “get to make 2 check to maintain a grapple each round.” It says, “This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round.” “Each round” includes the first round, where one of those checks is the check to Initiate the Grapple.

Gauss wrote:

2) Can you make a maintain check in the round that you initiate a grapple?

Answer: the rules seem to say maintain checks only occur in rounds subsequent to the round you initiate a grapple.

Normally, you can't. Normally, Initiating a Grapple is a Standard Action, and normally Maintaining a Grapple is also a Standard Action. And normally, you only get 1 Standard Action/round. Good thing, then, that you only need to make 1 check/round to Maintain a Grapple.

But if you have Greater Grapple, Maintaining a Grapple is a Move Action. And normally, you are allowed to make 1 Standard Action and 1 Move Action each round. The Core Rulebook says I get a Move and a Standard action each round. Specific trumps general, though: can you show me where it says that either Initiating a Grapple or the Greater Grapple Feat denies you the ability to take your Move Action?

And just what do we mean by "Maintain?"

Core Rulebook, Grappling wrote:
Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple).

"Maintain" refers to any subsequent check made after the Grapple has been Initiated. It lets you impose those other effects on top of just the initial imposing of the Grappled Condition on you and your opponent. It's called "maintain" because any subsequent round where you fail to achieve a successful Grapple check, you fail to hold your opponent.

Gauss wrote:
Finally, the Greater Grapple feat under the stamina rules also states that maintain checks only occur on subsequent rounds and even uses phrasing that indicates that is the normal stance.

I don't own a copy of Unchained, and so I am not allowed to use class features or rules in PFS events. Are you saying that Pathfinder Unchained represents a rewrite of the Core Rulebook?


Scott Wilhelm wrote:

No hes speaking to me in reference to what I've said. I also think that the issue is that greater grapple is supposed to change the action once grappled but not while you aren't grappled. So it would always be a standard action to start a grapple but once grappled it changes to a move. I felt the unchained action economy fixed this by separating them but it seems people read sentences wildly different.

For PFS ask the gm the question of interpretation before you start and either choose to play that game or not.

edit: Also PFS doesn't use stamina so it that feat rewrite shouldn't effect PFS.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gauss wrote:
Pathfinder is a game of inclusion. If it doesn't say you can do it, then you cannot without GM fiat.

Don't forget to take the poop feat guys. Your characters will eventually explode and die without it. :P


Scott Wilhelm,

Once again you are focusing on aspects of Greater Grapple which are not part of the discussion. The entire conversation has been about three of the sentences in Greater Grapple, not the feat as a whole.

The fact that you continually take my comments out of context leads me to believe you are doing so on purpose to obfuscate the matter. I am not going to write every response in lawyerese just so that you cannot take it out of context.

Greater Grapple wrote:
Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to grapple a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Grapple. Once you have grappled a creature, maintaining the grapple is a move action. This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round (to move, harm, or pin your opponent), but you are not required to make two checks. You only need to succeed at one of these checks to maintain the grapple.

There, bolded it for you so you cannot take it out of context any further.

Line one of the bolded section specifically states that maintaining a grapple is now a move action. It does not state that grapples are a move action.

Line two of the bolded section states you may make two grapple checks each round to move, harm, or pin your opponent. Clearly this is a reference to maintain checks.

Line three of the bolded section states that you only need to succeed at one of these checks to maintain the grapple.

All three lines are discussing maintain grapple checks. Not any other kind of grapple check.

So, we are clear, the Greater Grapple feat as it applies to making Grapple checks only modifies the action economy of maintain grapple checks.
Nowhere does it state you can make maintain checks in a turn you initiated a grapple.

What does Pathfinder Unchained have to say about it?

Pathfinder Unchained p121 wrote:
Greater Grapple (Combat): After you take a move action to successfully maintain a grapple, you can spend 5 stamina points before the end of your turn to maintain that grapple as a swift action. This allows you to make up to three grapple checks to maintain a grapple during a round, but you still can’t maintain a grapple until the round after you initiate it.

Clearly, the base assumption in Pathfinder Unchained is that you cannot maintain a grapple until the round after you initiate it.

The grapple rules in the CRB are a bit unclear and I acknowledged that long ago and stated it could use a FAQ. But that doesn't change the fact that maintain checks have always been in rounds after initiating a grapple and the text of the grapple rules (vaguely) support that.

The feat Greater Grapple does have wording stating you can perform multiple maintain checks but is has NO wording to change when those maintain checks are performed.

You and your side keep arguing that it is the change in action economy that allows you to do it, but it does not STATE that. It states a change in the action economy but it does not state a change to when you can use it.


Ravingdork, there are no rules regarding pooping either so, as far as we know, there is no poop and no need to poop in Pathfinder.

If GM fiat adds the need to poop, I am sure he can add the ability to excrete that poop. :P


I found the thread where they talk about not really understanding how grapple works.

Another Grapple Thread

Mark comments about it around halfway down the thread.


What Mark Seifter states is that before he began to work at Paizo he didn't know some things about grappling and was educated by Jason (the lead designer).

He goes on to state that the clause stating that maintain checks cannot be done in the round you initiate them was included (by him presumably) because he saw a need to express (and clarify) that rule to people that were missing it in the CRB.

So yes, the Devs do intend for maintain checks to be only on the round after you initiate the grapple.

Thank you for supplying the link Onyxlion. It quite clearly states why the statement that maintain cannot be performed on the turn you initiate a grapple was included in Pathfinder Unchained.

here is the post I am referencing:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Devilkiller wrote:

The only really explicit rule on this I've seen is on page 121 of Pathfinder Unchained, which states the following:

Pathfinder Unchained wrote:
Greater Grapple (Combat): After you take a move action to successfully maintain a grapple, you can spend 5 stamina points before the end of your turn to maintain that grapple as a swift action. This allows you to make up to three grapple checks to maintain a grapple during a round, but you still can’t maintain a grapple until the round after you initiate it.

The part about "you still can't maintain a grapple until the round after you initiate it" seems pretty clear to me. It could be argued whether or not that's a mistake, but I think the intent and expectations expressed by that sentence seem pretty clear.

Regarding the lack of FAQ for the James Jacobs post, "no reply needed" doesn't always mean that the opinion stated in the post is right. It also doesn't mean it is wrong, but I seem to remember another developer saying at some later time that you can't "maintain" a grapple on the turn when you establish it. All I can find on that is a quote from Bruno Breakbone which attributes the following statement to Mark Seifter:

Mark Seifter (allegedly) wrote:
Even if the enemy moved up to the tetori, you can't maintain during the same round you established. The only way I can think of to pull it off is with Snapping Turtle Clutch to establish off turn and then maintain on your own next turn for the pin and tie up.

To me it seems like we've had two Paizo developers saying two completely different things on the issue of maintaining a grapple in the same round when it was established. Now a new book has come out which seems to implicitly or even explicitly agree with the more restrictive interpretation. I don't have any problem with that. I'd just like to know the official intent since it might help me decide which feats are fun for my PC and avoid using a bunch of tactics which later are revealed to be illegal.

It does sound like Mark Seifter...

When I came to work at Paizo, I asked Jason and the others about grappling and discovered some things I hadn't known before. In any case, though, despite being a designer, messageboard posts are unofficial. The clause in Unchained actually came about because I told everyone that most people were not seeing that part of maintain at the moment when they read the CRB, so it was worth calling out specifically if that was how the combat trick was intended to work. I have a draft of a grappling FAQ blog out there to clear up everything that I found surprising (plus explain the parts that the expert players and GMs already know but are confusing to others), but FAQ blogs are hard to do, and it's behind the ones that have higher FAQ clicks like simulacrum and divinations.

I bolded the relevant part as to why the comment regarding maintain only being able to be performed after your turn was included in the Pathfinder Unchained Greater Grapple text.


Gauss wrote:

What Mark Seifter states is that before he began to work at Paizo he didn't know some things about grappling and was educated by Jason (the lead designer).

He goes on to state that the clause stating that maintain checks cannot be done in the round you initiate them was included (by him presumably) because he saw a need to express (and clarify) that rule to people that were missing it in the CRB.

So yes, the Devs do intend for maintain checks to be only on the round after you initiate the grapple.

Thank you for supplying the link Onyxlion. It quite clearly states why the statement that maintain cannot be performed on the turn you initiate a grapple was included in Pathfinder Unchained.

Yet it is still no where stated in the rules, if they issue that blog post maybe then we'll have an answer. No conclusions where came to even after that post.

Honestly to me it makes zero sense on having to wait, it just seems arbitrary. Why do you feel waiting is appropriate, not rules wise but sense wise?

Edit: As stated a few post ago it also means you can only grapple once a turn ever no matter your feats.


Onyxlion, it IS stated in the CRB rules, but in a rather unclear manner. One in which clearly leads to this confusion.

This is appears to be the beginning of the Devs attempts to clear that up. Perhaps an actual FAQ on the topic is required rather than a 'stealth FAQ' in Pathfinder Unchained.

As for it being arbitrary, all rules are arbitrary. Many do not make sense (in the non-rules sense of make sense). I don't do get into discussions on whether a rule makes sense (in a non-rules sense form of makes sense) or not on the rules forum. In the rules forum I try to stick to rules discussions.

Edit: not at all, you can still make multiple maintain checks. Just not on the turn you initiated the grapple. This actually makes maintain a potentially viable option. (Such as cases where a creature releases the grapple in order to get a new full attack sequence with grab.)


Gauss wrote:

Onyxlion, it IS stated in the CRB rules, but in a rather unclear manner. One in which clearly leads to this confusion.

This is appears to be the beginning of the Devs attempts to clear that up. Perhaps an actual FAQ on the topic is required rather than a 'stealth FAQ' in Pathfinder Unchained.

As for it being arbitrary, all rules are arbitrary. Many do not make sense (in the non-rules sense of make sense). I don't do get into discussions on whether a rule makes sense (in a non-rules sense form of makes sense) or not on the rules forum. In the rules forum I try to stick to rules discussions.

Edit: not at all, you can still make multiple maintain checks. Just not on the turn you initiated the grapple. This actually makes maintain a potentially viable option. (Such as cases where a creature releases the grapple in order to get a new full attack sequence with grab.)

As written no you can not, you only get the chance at the start of your turn period. It says so the way you view it, nothing gets around that at the start. The 2 rules below limit you to only 1 taken your way you don't get any more only that one or release period.

1-If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold.

2-Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple)


Gauss,

Was the post of Mark Seifter you quoted an Official Rules Post? If it is, please link to it. If it isn't, it is not evidence that is worth anything.

My understanding is that Pathfinder Unchained is a collection of alternative rules, not an update to the official rules. Does Pathfinder Unchained constitute a rewrite of the Core Rulebook and a rewrite of the Grappling rules? If it is, could you link to something official that states that Unchained trumps Core Rulebook? If it doesn't, it's not evidence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While posts by developers aren't considered official, they are by no means worthless.

Gauss has the right of it, in every aspect.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:

While posts by developers aren't considered official, they are by no means worthless.

Gauss has the right of it, in every aspect.

Except, you know, all of them.


Dallium wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:

While posts by developers aren't considered official, they are by no means worthless.

Gauss has the right of it, in every aspect.

Except, you know, all of them.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you claiming all posts by developers are worthless?


Gauss wrote:
Once again you are focusing on aspects of Greater Grapple which are not part of the discussion.

No, I am bringing up the +2 to the Grapple Mod for the first time. You were the one who first brought it up. Mistakenly apparently, but I am feeling very done apologizing for your mistakes. It wasn't part of the discussion before. Now it is. I am not focusing on it, but I am bringing it up: no mistake.

Gauss wrote:
The entire conversation has been about three of the sentences in Greater Grapple, not the feat as a whole.

It pretty much has, but then

you wrote:

1) Does Greater Grapple apply to all Grapple checks or ONLY maintain checks?

Answer: The feat states that it applies to maintain checks and states that you are allowed to make two checks per round.

That is a statement about the whole Feat. I assert that Greater Grapple does state that it it grants a +2 to all Grapple Checks, and not just checks to maintain the Grapple. That is offered as an example to counter the statement you made. If you wish to retract or amend that statement on the grounds that you didn't mean it that way, that's fine. I'll accept your retraction or amendment as if you never wrote that. Meanwhile, I know this +2 applies to all Grapple checks because

Greater Grapple wrote:
This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Grapple.

And if this bonus only applied to Maintain-a-Grapple Checks, then it could not stack with Improved Grapple, which also applies to all aspects of the Grapple, including Initiate.

What this means is that you can't assume that the whole Feat only applies to only 1 aspect or other. Some of it may apply to the whole Grappling process, some of it may only apply to one specific part.

Greater Grapple wrote:
Once you have grappled a creature, maintaining the grapple is a move action.
Gauss wrote:
states that maintaining a grapple is now a move action. It does not state that grapples are a move action.

I agree.

Greater Grapple wrote:
This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round
Gauss wrote:
Clearly this is a reference to maintain checks.

Clearly this is not. The subject of the sentence is “This feat.” That means it is a reference to the whole feat, and stands on its own as an independent statement about the whole Feat, which affects all aspects of Grappling, in this case, 2 checks each round. That includes the first round before the Grapple has yet been achieved.

Look at it in the context of the whole Feat. “This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Grapple.” The subject of this sentence is “This bonus.” This sentence clearly does apply to the prior sentence, where a bonus, this bonus, was mentioned.

Greater Grapple wrote:
You only need to succeed at one of these checks to maintain the grapple.

Here we both agree that this sentence refers to maintaining a Grapple, but it actually says that.

You assertion that “This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round” refers is only meant to be taken in context of the prior sentence and only applies to Maintain checks is just unsupported by facts.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Dallium wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:

While posts by developers aren't considered official, they are by no means worthless.

Gauss has the right of it, in every aspect.

Except, you know, all of them.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you claiming all posts by developers are worthless?

I can't speak for Dallium, but I'll say that unless the Developers are making Official Rules Posts, their opinions are just opinions, much like ours, sometimes supported by evidence, sometimes not.

CampinCarl9127, your post has no evidence.

This is evidence:

Mark Seifter Designer wrote:
I'm happy to answer rules questions, but they're just my off the cuff answers,
Mark Seifter Designer wrote:
Remembering that this is just my off-the-cuff answer, so it isn't official--it's just how I'd run it in my games until a FAQ:
Mark Seifter Designer wrote:
I am actually happy to give my take on rules questions. But I've mentioned several times before that it's always just my opinion and holds no official weight.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I can't speak for Dallium, but I'll say that unless the Developers are making Official Rules Posts, their opinions are just opinions, much like ours, sometimes supported by evidence, sometimes not.

The opinions of the developers, which is something I personally value above the average poster. Does that mean they are infallible? Not by any stretch. But they are certainly right much more often than the average poster. It's the same logic that makes me trust a doctor over my friend when discussing a health problem.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
CampinCarl9127, your post has no evidence.

...did I say it did? No, I presented no evidence. I just weighed in with agreement with Gauss. Nothing more. If you want evidence, read Gauss's posts. He says everything I could and more.


I think that the clause "you still can’t maintain a grapple until the round after you initiate it" in Pathfinder Unchained very strongly implies that you normally can't maintain a grapple until the round after you initiate it. What I can't say for sure is whether that was the intent of the clause. I can say that Mark Seifter stated he put the clause into Unchained because of something most people were missing about maintaining a grapple when they read the CRB.

Since Mark didn't elaborate on what it was people were missing it is tough for me to say with certainty what he wanted the clause in Unchained to tell us. My best two guesses would be:
#1 - The clause is intended to affirm an existing rule that you can't maintain a grapple until the round after you establish it and indicate that the Greater Grapple combat trick doesn't allow you to bypass that restriction.
#2 - The clause is intended to point out that even though you could normally maintain a grapple in the round when you establish it you can't use the Greater Grapple combat trick to do so.

I think that meaning #1 fits pretty well with what Mark said and with how I read the text in Unchained. If meaning #2 was the intent then I think the clause is rather poorly written and the use of the word "still" strongly implies meaning #2 (at least to me). Just saying something like "You can't use this trick in the round when you establish a grapple" might have worked better.

Assuming that meaning #1 is the true intent I wonder whether they should have said "turn" instead of round though. If not then you could have kind of a weird situation if you establish a grapple with Grab during an AoO and then your turn comes up before the end of the round. If you must maintain a grapple at the start of your turn to keep an opponent grappled but really can't maintain the grapple until the round after you establish it then I guess you'd have to release the enemy. That seems silly, so I'd guess you can actually maintain the grapple on the turn after you establish rather than the round after you establish it.

That could mean AoO+Grab followed by a Pin on the monster's turn, and that reminds me that not everybody can agree whether a Pin should need to be maintained with the Pin action from round to round or if maintaining the grapple (perhaps with the actions to damage or move the enemy) would also maintain the Pinned condition. The latter would make monsters with Grab much more dangerous than the former. Anyhow, Mark Seifter indicated that he was working on a FAQ for grappling, but it sounded like it is lower priority than a lot of more pressing issues. Until then I'm playing grapple conservatively as both a DM and player.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Dallium wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:

While posts by developers aren't considered official, they are by no means worthless.

Gauss has the right of it, in every aspect.

Except, you know, all of them.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you claiming all posts by developers are worthless?

I'm saying Gauss is wrong, and not just because he has conspicuously lacked anything approaching a logical argument anywhere in the thread.

Dev commentary is generally worth less than that of the rest of us when the rules are otherwise clear, and the reason is simple. The rules are what the dev actually communicated, whereas the dev's opinions are what the dev THINKS they communicated. What you meant often isn't what you said. If the rule is genuinely ambiguous, sure, by all means take the dev's word for it.

CampinCarl9127 wrote:
It's the same logic that makes me trust a doctor over my friend when discussing a health problem.

This is a false comparison. Doctors don't invent and publish the methods by which the body works, they've learned it from materials that was gathered by objective, scientific means.

The Devs, on the other hand, don't always remember WHAT they actually said as well as they remember what they were TRYING to say. Jason Nelson discusses the Bodyguard feat he wrote here, and at the very bottom, he admits that the feat doesn't work the way he intended.

By contrast, players come to the rules largely cold, and initially view them as we read them and/or how they are taught to us. There is, at least initially, no real possibility of us conflating developer intent with what the page actually says.


Dallium wrote:
I'm saying Gauss is wrong, and not just because he has conspicuously lacked anything approaching a logical argument anywhere in the thread.

I disagree. Gauss has completely convinced me with his logic, as opposed to you who has not.

Dallium wrote:
This is a false comparison.

My point is that they are both experts at the subject matter. Again, I did not say infallible.

But now we're arguing about the argument which is entirely pointless and derailing. I bid you a good day.


CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I can't speak for Dallium, but I'll say that unless the Developers are making Official Rules Posts, their opinions are just opinions, much like ours, sometimes supported by evidence, sometimes not.

The opinions of the developers, which is something I personally value above the average poster. Does that mean they are infallible? Not by any stretch. But they are certainly right much more often than the average poster. It's the same logic that makes me trust a doctor over my friend when discussing a health problem.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
CampinCarl9127, your post has no evidence.
...did I say it did? No, I presented no evidence. I just weighed in with agreement with Gauss. Nothing more. If you want evidence, read Gauss's posts. He says everything I could and more.

I would also weigh the unsupported opinions of the developers over the unsupported opinions of anybody else, but I would weigh anybody's evidence-supported opinion over anybody's unsupported opinion. In this, I echo Mark Seifter's opinion.

I now acknowledge your comment as a vote for Gauss on this issue.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Gauss,

Was the post of Mark Seifter you quoted an Official Rules Post? If it is, please link to it. If it isn't, it is not evidence that is worth anything.

My understanding is that Pathfinder Unchained is a collection of alternative rules, not an update to the official rules. Does Pathfinder Unchained constitute a rewrite of the Core Rulebook and a rewrite of the Grappling rules? If it is, could you link to something official that states that Unchained trumps Core Rulebook? If it doesn't, it's not evidence.

Scott, it doesn't have to be 'official' since it wasn't changing anything. The clarification is in Pathfinder Unchained, this was Mark's comments as to why the clarification was inserted into Pathfinder Unchained.

In any case, I didn't bring Pathfinder Unchained into this discussion.

The CRB's section on Grapple is clearly confusing to some. Nothing in Pathfinder Unchained has to 'trump' the CRB since what is written there does not change the text in the CRB, just clarifies it.

Please stop truncating the sentence "This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round".

The full sentence is "This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round (to move, harm, or pin your opponent), but you are not required to make two checks."

Clearly "This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round (to move, harm, or pin your opponent), but you are not required to make two checks." is referencing Maintain. If you cannot see that then really, there is no point discussing this further.


Devilkiller,

It seems that Pathfinder Unchained might have parts that reflect Mark Seifter's opinion that Greater Grapple does not enable characters to make a maintain-a-grapple check on the same round in which you Initiated the Grapple.

But before discussing that, the question is, does Pathfinder Unchained represent an official revision or update of the Core Rulebook? To my understanding, it represents an alternative to the official rules, not a revision.

But if somebody can officially show me that Mark Seifter or somebody else, perhaps Pathfinder Unchained, has officially change the Grappling rules, I will acknowledge the change in the rules.


Scott, I think you misunderstood the order of things.

First:
Pathfinder Unchained came out with a statement in it's stamina version of Greater Grapple that states: "but you still can’t maintain a grapple until the round after you initiate it.".

Second:
People noticed this and asked questions.

Third:
Mark came along and said that statement was added due to the continuing confusion as to how people are interpreting maintaining a grapple.

So Mark's comments are an explanation as to why the statement was included in Pathfinder Unchained.

The statement in Pathfinder Unchained is in effect, a stealth clarification. But the rules did not have to change since they are easy to misunderstand the way they are currently written. Mark has stated that when they can get to it there will be a Blog on this.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait a minute, are you stating that the words 'you must maintain a grapple each round after initiation' to mean actually 'you can only maintain a grapple each round after initiation?

Because those two sentences aren't even close to equivalent.


Gauss wrote:

Scott, I think you misunderstood the order of things.

First:
Pathfinder Unchained came out with a statement in it's stamina version of Greater Grapple that states: "but you still can’t maintain a grapple until the round after you initiate it.".

Second:
People noticed this and asked questions.

Third:
Mark came along and said that statement was added due to the continuing confusion as to how people are interpreting maintaining a grapple.

So Mark's comments are an explanation as to why the statement was included in Pathfinder Unchained.

The statement in Pathfinder Unchained is in effect, a stealth clarification. But the rules did not have to change since they are easy to misunderstand the way they are currently written. Mark has stated that when they can get to it there will be a Blog on this.

I am neither understanding nor misunderstanding: I'm asking.

Do Mark's Comments represent an official rules change?

Does Pathfinder Unchained represent an official rule change?

Can anyone officially demonstrate the answer to either of the above questions?

From the number of times I've asked these questions and the fact that you have yet to answer them is in and of itself an answer, isn't it?


Scott Wilhelm, you clearly are misunderstanding since Mark's comments were reasons about a book rather than expressing a change. It is apparent you either did not read his comments or did not understand them in the context given.

Pathfinder Unchained is a rulebook. Yes, it has optional rules. But, this optional rule is referencing a standard rule in a way that clarifies the standard rule.

Take it for whatever you want, but Mark got it from Jason and then they put it in a book intended to be a stopgap clarification until they can get to the blog.

I am guessing you and many on your side will ignore this until the blog comes out then you will probably continue to ignore it. But the fact that they went so far to put it in a rulebook and then explained why they did that seems pretty clear as to the intent.

Do what you want with that information, my guess is you are going to declare it 'optional' and ignore it until such a time when they publish a Blog, but if your issue is with PFS expect table variation as some GMs will run it the way it is intended.


_Ozy_ wrote:

Wait a minute, are you stating that the words 'you must maintain a grapple each round after initiation' to mean actually 'you can only maintain a grapple each round after initiation?

Because those two sentences aren't even close to equivalent.

This.

A requirement to maintain a grapple at the beginning of each turn is not the same as being limited to that action only at that time.

If I want to activate a wand without having access to the spell within on my spell list, I must make a UMD check to activate it.
This does not prevent me from making a UMD check to activate a scroll of a higher level spell than I can cast.

Please don't butcher language rules anymore than they already are in order to support a rules point.


Sangrine, _Ozy_'s quote is not the actual rule.

CRB p200 wrote:
If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold.

That is the rule, and it is stating that to maintain you must make a check each round. You are correct, it does not state a limit either, and that is where the confusion comes in. The normal procedure (yes, due to the action economy) is that it is limited it to rounds after initiating a grapple.

You and others think that because the action economy changes that you can now do it in the round you initiated a grapple. But that was clearly not the intent and it has now been confirmed in both Dev comments (as confirmed by Jason to Mark) and in rule form (Pathfinder Unchained).

The Devs have clearly stated the intent in Pathfinder Unchained, they have then explained why they put that intent there. They have also stated that they will be putting out a Blog to further explain how Grapple is supposed to work since many still do not have a good grasp on it.

So, in the meantime, feel free to run it any way you want, and then when the blog is finally published continue to run it any way you want because we all know most of you will ignore the blog in favor of running it any way you want. But for those people that will actually follow the Devs intent when they state it, we will be ruling as it was intended. Expect table variation.

Please do not accuse us of butchering the rules when the rules are not 100% clear and we are actually following the Devs (stated) intent.

Grand Lodge

Gauss wrote:
They have also stated that they will be putting out a Blog to further explain how Grapple is supposed to work since many still do not have a good grasp on it.

I've been seeing variations of this comment for about two years now with regard to "an upcoming grapple blog". You'll have to forgive if I no longer believe it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can definitely maintain on the round you grab them, its like, pretty simple?

Guass never ever backs down on anything and writes agonizingly long posts so you guys can stop now


Semantic analysis of the existing RAW might not be a good predictor of whatever FAQ Paizo will finally release. The existing RAW for grapple seems kind of murky, and Paizo would probably reserve the right to change the rules anyhow (at least based on other recent errata). In the meantime I feel like Mark Seifter's post serves as a cryptic prophecy of the coming FAQ.


Gauss, you are wrong in almost everyway about the actions:

A grapple check is a grapple check, be it to initiate or anything after.

A grapple check made that is not part of initiation and made by the controller is a maintain check.

A maintain check is no different than the normal grapple action except one has to be succeeded every round to keep the grapple alive.

All maintain checks keep the target from breaking out at the end of the controller's turn and allow you to pin (if not already pinned), move both grappled creatures the controller's movement speed (which could be exploited for x3 movement speed with rapid grapple), or do damage (weapon in off hand or unarmed/natural attack).

Greater grapple lets you make maintain checks as move actions instead of standard actions.

With greater grapple, you can make 2 grapple checks per turn: 1 as a move action and another as a standard (converted to a move action)

Rapid grappler lets you can make maintain checks as a swift action after the first successful maintain check in the round.

With rapid grappler, you can make 3 grapple checks in a round, either:
-initiation: Initiate as a standard, maintain as a move, maintain again as a swift*
-Full maintain: Maintain as a move, Maintain again as a standard-->move-->swift, and Maintain once more as a swift.

If you have greater grapple and are not the controller, it is still a standard action to break free or become the controller; in the latter case you can act as above.

(Personal rule: If at any point and time, the controller fails a maintain check, the target breaks free.)

* This pattern lets you grapple, pin, and tie up in a round, assuming you pass all checks and your target is no larger than you (or one step larger with the feat, cant remember the name).


AwesomenessDog wrote:

-Full maintain: Maintain as a move, Maintain again as a standard-->move-->swift, and Maintain once more as a swift.

I agree with everything you said except the above. You may only take one swift action per turn (without a feat or magic item that circumvents that rule). You can "convert" a standard to a move, but not a move to a swift. That does not mean, however, you can't perform 3 grapple checks a turn with that cocktail of feats.

CRB wrote:
You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take.


@AwesomenessDog - I think your "personal rule" clearly contradicts the rules for Greater Grapple, which say that you only need to succeed at one of your two checks to maintain the grapple. I'm guessing that you're aware of that and just have a house rule, but I thought I should point it out in case anybody might think that's the way it works officially (yeah, "personal rule" seems clear, but sometimes folks don't read carefully, and English isn't always their first language)

One of my PCs has Greater Grapple and frequently manages to maintain the grapple on the second check despite me rolling a nat 1 on the first one.


Gauss wrote:
Please stop truncating the sentence "This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round". The full sentence is "This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round (to move, harm, or pin your opponent), but you are not required to make two checks."

Everyone knows what the full sentence says. You and/or others have quoted part or all of the whole text of the Benefits section of this Feat more than once, and you yourself quoted the whole body only yesterday. We are talking about Core Rulebook Rules and a Core Rulebook Feat, and everybody knows where to find it. It's location has also been exhaustively indexed on this thread. If you want to re-examine the whole sentence, fine, but your complaint is specious.

Gauss wrote:
Clearly "This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round (to move, harm, or pin your opponent)... is referencing Maintain.

Adding this infinitive phrase does not change the fact that this sentence refers to all kinds of Grapple checks as opposed to only maintain checks. This sentence plainly says you can make either or both of your checks for harming your opponent. On the first round of the Grapple, you take a Standard Action to harm your opponent by Initiating a Grapple and imposing the Grappled condition on your opponent: harming. Then you use your Move Action to harm your opponent again by Pinning your opponent. What's the problem?

Gauss wrote:
but you are not required to make two checks." is referencing Maintain.

There is nothing about this clause that changes the subject of this sentence. "This Feat allows you to make two grapple checks... but you are not required to make two checks." There is nothing here limits either check from Initiating the Grapple.

Gauss wrote:
If you cannot see that then really, there is no point discussing this further.

Then don't. It's starting to feel like you are casting aspersions on my character, and I really don't appreciate it.


AwesomenessDog wrote:

Gauss, you are wrong in almost everyway about the actions:

A grapple check is a grapple check, be it to initiate or anything after.

A grapple check made that is not part of initiation and made by the controller is a maintain check.

A maintain check is no different than the normal grapple action except one has to be succeeded every round to keep the grapple alive.

All maintain checks keep the target from breaking out at the end of the controller's turn and allow you to pin (if not already pinned), move both grappled creatures the controller's movement speed (which could be exploited for x3 movement speed with rapid grapple), or do damage (weapon in off hand or unarmed/natural attack).

Greater grapple lets you make maintain checks as move actions instead of standard actions.

With greater grapple, you can make 2 grapple checks per turn: 1 as a move action and another as a standard (converted to a move action)

Rapid grappler lets you can make maintain checks as a swift action after the first successful maintain check in the round.

With rapid grappler, you can make 3 grapple checks in a round, either:
-initiation: Initiate as a standard, maintain as a move, maintain again as a swift*
-Full maintain: Maintain as a move, Maintain again as a standard-->move-->swift, and Maintain once more as a swift.

If you have greater grapple and are not the controller, it is still a standard action to break free or become the controller; in the latter case you can act as above.

(Personal rule: If at any point and time, the controller fails a maintain check, the target breaks free.)

* This pattern lets you grapple, pin, and tie up in a round, assuming you pass all checks and your target is no larger than you (or one step larger with the feat, cant remember the name).

There is nothing in the rules that enables you to use a maintain check in the same round as when you initiate a grapple. The rules in the CRB states that maintain checks are made in the rounds after the round you initiate a grapple. But you and others read that as changeable with Greater Grapple, fine, it is not clear.

Then, in Pathfinder Unchained the Devs added text that absolutely states that you cannot maintain a grapple in the round you initiate it (Pathfinder Unchained p121 in Greater Grapple).

Then, Mark (a Dev), then explained that this is how it was explained to him by Jason (the Lead Dev) and that the text was added to Pathfinder Unchained to help clarify matters until a Blog is released.

You may dislike that you cannot legally do this, but please do not tell me I have it all wrong when the Devs state that it is absolutely right.


Gauss wrote:
There is nothing in the rules that enables you to use a maintain check in the same round as when you initiate a grapple.

Yes there is: the Greater Grapple Feat! You get a Standard Action and a Move Action every round. Initiating a Grapple costs a Standard Action, and when you have Greater Grapple, maintaining it is a Move Action! That's what the rules say!

Gauss wrote:
You may dislike that

All you want, but that doesn't change the facts.

Gauss wrote:
The rules in the CRB states that maintain checks are made in the rounds after the round you initiate a grapple.

No, they don't. The rules state that if you don't maintain the checks after the round you initiate the Grapple, your opponent is let go. The rules state that subsequent successful checks let you Move, Damage, Pin and/or Tie Up your opponent in addition to the standard action of maintaining the Grapple, only when you have Greater Grapple, it's a Move Action.

Gauss wrote:
Then, in Pathfinder Unchained the Devs added text that absolutely states that you cannot maintain a grapple in the round you initiate it (Pathfinder Unchained p121 in Greater Grapple).

No, they didn't: Pathfinder Unchained is an optional rulebook.

Gauss wrote:
Then, Mark (a Dev),

Well, Mark

Gauss wrote:
may dislike that

all he wants, but unless and until he changes the rules, and he can do that, he has to obey the rules. This is America: the people who create and enforce the rules also have to obey the rules.

Don't believe me? Then believe Mark

Mark Seifter Designer wrote:
I'm happy to answer rules questions, but they're just my off the cuff answers,
Mark Seifter Designer wrote:
Remembering that this is just my off-the-cuff answer, so it isn't official--it's just how I'd run it in my games until a FAQ:
Mark Seifter Designer wrote:
I am actually happy to give my take on rules questions. But I've mentioned several times before that it's always just my opinion and holds no official weight.
Gauss wrote:
explained to him by Jason (the Lead Dev)

Do you mean this Jason?

Jason Nelson wrote:
If you are playing PFS or any other RAW rules campaign, the above opinion is merely that and carries no official weight.

Jason Nelson


Scott, Jason Nelson is not a Paizo Dev, he is a contractor. The Paizo Dev named Jason is Jason Bulmahn who is the Lead Dev.

Again, Mark did not state that he changed the rules. The clarification is in Pathfinder Unchained after which he supplied the reason for the clarification.

I am sorry you don't like it, but that is the rules.

Regarding Greater Grapple, we have already gone over this, the sentences you and I keep debating are all about Maintain even if you don't think they are. (Do I have to repost them or will you play nice and actually understand which ones I am referencing?)

Finally, please stop taking my posts out of context, you are as bad as a reporter. You are reorganizing my posts in an attempt to make them mean whatever you want them to.


So, going back to the AoO + Grab before your turn, according to your interpretation, you can't maintain that grapple during your turn, so the guy automatically breaks free?


Generally Gauss and I differ on rules, but in this instance we agree.

However if you were able to initiate a grapple on an aoo, then you should be able to maintain on your turn.

51 to 100 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Grapple, pin, and tied in one round? All Messageboards