Grapple, pin, and tied in one round?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Rogar Stonebow wrote:

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.

I don't see how. Either you abide by the rules in 'Unchained' or you don't. There are no rules in Core that prevent Greater Grapple from allowing two checks each turn.

Can you explain to me how you come to your conclusion?


_Ozy_, I have not stated that you would not be able to maintain grapple during your turn after an AoO+Grab. Please do not ascribe statements to me that I did not make.

The best way to handle it would be to handle it normally. AoO+Grab, then on your next turn you make your maintain check like normal. However, that is also not clear in the rules and is why there is still a need for the Blog (despite the Devs' clarification in Pathfinder Unchained).

Finally, can we please stop calling this "my interpretation"? This has long since moved past being my interpretation since the Devs have provided a clarification in Pathfinder Unchained.


Gauss wrote:

_Ozy_, I have not stated that you would not be able to grapple during your turn after an AoO+Grab. Please do not ascribe statements to me that I did not make.

The best way to handle it would be to handle it normally. AoO+Grab, then on your next turn you make your maintain check like normal. However, that is also not clear in the rules and is why there is still a need for the Blog (despite the Devs' clarification in Pathfinder Unchained).

Finally, can we please stop calling this "my interpretation"? This has long since moved past being my interpretation since the Devs have provided a clarification in Pathfinder Unchained.

The fact that your interpretation aligns with some others does not, in fact, make it the correct interpretation. And when and if an official blog comes out to support your interpretation, then you will be able to say otherwise. How long do we have to wait?

This is the language from Unchained:

Quote:
but you still can’t maintain a grapple until the round after you initiate it.

This clearly contradicts the AoO+Grab, and then maintain on your turn.

So which is it? Do we use that rule, or do we ignore that rule? You can't have it both ways.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Rogar Stonebow wrote:

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.

I don't see how. Either you abide by the rules in 'Unchained' or you don't. There are no rules in Core that prevent Greater Grapple from allowing two checks each turn.

Can you explain to me how you come to your conclusion?

Instead of me rewriting what Gauss said numerous times, see above.


Rogar Stonebow wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Rogar Stonebow wrote:

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.

I don't see how. Either you abide by the rules in 'Unchained' or you don't. There are no rules in Core that prevent Greater Grapple from allowing two checks each turn.

Can you explain to me how you come to your conclusion?

Instead of me rewriting what Gauss said numerous times, see above.

See what above? The unchained language says you can't maintain on the same round that your grapple. AoO+Grab, then maintain on your turn attempts to maintain on the same round as the grapple.

Please explain this inconsistency, Gauss so far has not.


_Ozy_, it is the correct interpretation as the rules and the Devs state it is. The fact that the rules then have a minor phrasing conflict with a FAQ is not a problem with my interpretation, it is a problem that needs a FAQ. Please stop trying to make me your scapegoat.

In fact, the problem of AoO+Grab has always existed for those people that (now shown to be correctly) read the rules that maintain can only occur on subsequent turns.

Frankly, it is a rather easy resolution that I think most people will easily arrive at assuming they are not being obtuse. That resolution being to realize that when they said 'round' they were not trying to address every corner case and in a case where you make an AoO that results in a grapple then the obvious solution is you make a Maintain check on your next turn.

The Devs are not going to spoon feed this to you, you have to use a bit of brainpower to solve corner cases.


Devilkiller wrote:

@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.

In hindsight, "Personal House Rule" might have been better. But if you are trying to continue to harm someone and you mess it up, it mean they break out in my games since as is; it accounts for how grapple builds get three attacks with their highest BAB *and* it qualifies for feats like vital and what not with this progression.

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. 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.

No where (except UC rules) does it explicitly state that maintain checks come in later turns, it is only implied that way with the action economy before Greater Grapple; even then if hero points were involved, you could spend a hero point and perform a maintain the round of. Now that there is unchained do we have something that references something that isn't already a rule, and they have yet to come out with any UC errata (as far as I know). UC is also a completely option rule book which means I can both ignore it and it still be "perfectly legal" or if I never bought the book I can bring it to a table and justify my rule more than you can with a rule that still doesn't actually exist.

_Ozy_, there is no reason as to why you cannot, rules or RAI: the AoO belonged to the turn before and this is a new turn (even assuming you cant grapple and maintain on the same turn) and why would it make sense to have to let go and re-grab someone who let his guard down?


Gauss wrote:

_Ozy_, it is the correct interpretation as the rules and the Devs state it is. The fact that the rules then have a minor phrasing conflict with a FAQ is not a problem with my interpretation, it is a problem that needs a FAQ. Please stop trying to make me your scapegoat.

Frankly, it is a rather easy resolution that I think most people will easily arrive at assuming they are not being obtuse.

What the hell dude, you can't base your entire argument on the fact that the rules 'have a minor phrasing conflict' and just disregard the conflict, but only in specific cases that you select!

AoO + Grab, then maintain on your turn, two checks per round.

Greater grapple initiate on standard, maintain on move action, two checks per round.

You say yes to the first and no to the second based on an entirely subjective interpretation that the Unchained rules apply to the second and not to the first because of a 'minor phrasing conflict'.

That just doesn't make any sense. There are no rules, anywhere, that would differentiate between the two cases listed above, especially given the explicit language of greater grapple.

It's not being obtuse, it's being consistent.


AwesomenessDog wrote:
_Ozy_, there is no reason as to why you cannot, rules or RAI: the AoO belonged to the turn before and this is a new turn (even assuming you cant grapple and maintain on the same turn) and why would it make sense to have to let go and re-grab someone who let his guard down?

If only the rules used the word 'turn' instead of 'round'...

;)


Btw, I can't remember who pointed out that I can't turn a standard into a swift for three grapple checks but one could still just Move, Swift, then standard (ignroring feats for the last action).


You couldn't initiate the grapple with that first move action.

Of course, if you had AoO + Grab to initiate, then on your turn you could move + swift + standard for a total of 4 checks in one round. ;)


Gauss wrote:

_Ozy_, it is the correct interpretation as the rules and the Devs state it is. The fact that the rules then have a minor phrasing conflict with a FAQ is not a problem with my interpretation, it is a problem that needs a FAQ. Please stop trying to make me your scapegoat.

In fact, the problem of AoO+Grab has always existed for those people that (now shown to be correctly) read the rules that maintain can only occur on subsequent turns.

Frankly, it is a rather easy resolution that I think most people will easily arrive at assuming they are not being obtuse. That resolution being to realize that when they said 'round' they were not trying to address every corner case and in a case where you make an AoO that results in a grapple then the obvious solution is you make a Maintain check on your next turn.

The Devs are not going to spoon feed this to you, you have to use a bit of brainpower to solve corner cases.

*sniff sniff* I smell hypocracy... The only person who is being obtuse is the one who uses option rule system that have an edit that "it's always just (Mark's) opinion and holds no official weight" to counter core rules and then bash talking those who disagree with him.

You have provided no actual citation of converstation between Jason and Mark that would indicate anything more than Jason telling Mark to put up what ever he thinks is best which not only "holds no weight" but is a dev opinion before and official ruling is released.


_Ozy_ wrote:

You couldn't initiate the grapple with that first move action.

Of course, if you had AoO + Grab to initiate, then on your turn you could move + swift + standard for a total of 4 checks in one round. ;)

That was for getting three grapples in after you already initiated some round before; sorry for confusion.


Gauss wrote:
_Ozy_, it is the correct interpretation as the rules ... state it is.

No, it isn't.

Gauss wrote:
_Ozy_, it is the correct interpretation as ... the Devs state it is.

Aha. There we go. I have been wracking my brain trying to figure out how on earth you and those who agree with you have come up with your interpretation, which seems to fly in the face of how reading rules works. And I just figured it out. Yet another rule question where one interpretation is outright stated to be the Developer intent. There are always people who go "If the devs say this is how it's supposed to work, then that must be how it actually works, and I'll do whatever mental gymnastics are required to make it fit." Well ok, that answers that question.

Lets pretend for a moment that one day out of the blue, Mark goes "Oh hey! I just now realized that magic missile should have been d12s this whole time! Sorry guys, FAQ and CRB revision incoming when we get aroudn to it, but yeah, we intended magic missile to use d12s this whole time." You wouldn't be wrong is you began playing the game with d12s. You WOULD be wrong if you said the rules say Magic Missile uses d12s. They wouldn't. Not until they were actually changed.

And so it is here. You can maintain the first turn of the grapple for all the excellent reasons Scott and a few others have enumerated. You can play with that interpretation or with the dev intent, no skin off my nose.

It doesn't matter how many times you restate it, Guass, there are those of us who don't lend any credence to your arguments. I don't accept the idea that "must use on subsequent turns" == "can't use first turn." I don't accept the idea that there isn't an explict rule that you can use maintain on the first round, to me, Greater Grapple (regular) covers that. I don't accept Dev commentary that "this is how an ability is supposed to work" is in any way binding without a FAQ, errata or reprinting. I don't accept that a feat in optional rules clarifies anything in the main game. And I don't have a horse in the race, I've never initiated a grapple in my life. I'm just looking at what the rules are telling me.


AwesomenessDog wrote:
Btw, I can't remember who pointed out that I can't turn a standard into a swift for three grapple checks but one could still just Move, Swift, then standard (ignroring feats for the last action).

That was me, and in the same post I said it doesn't really matter.


The fact that you folks cannot see how the rules can be read a couple different ways in this regard just shows how closed minded you are being on this.

The fact that you are so dismissive to the Devs continues to show it.

Enjoy your game, expect table variance or houserule it any way you want, it is obvious you are going to do so anyhow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well until an optional rulebook came out the rules did not seem to support Gausses point of view.

Now mark says it one way unofficially and Jacobs says it the other unofficially.

I look at it like this. The two unofficial statements are both equally worthless.

So it comes to the ruling out of an optional book of how they should have made something that a contractor wrote out(in my observations paizo is the worst at proofreading content).

I would side on the that you can maintain the first round. after this analysis. I am strong enough in this belief that I would lose some appreciation for a DM that disagreed.


Finlanderboy, have you even read Mark's comments? He did not say it was 'one way'. What he did state was why they added the text. Which means, it was NOT added by a contractor. It was added by the Devs.

I swear, I think some of you aren't even reading this stuff.

BTW, James Jacobs is not one of the rules Devs, he states this himself. He has been wrong before although I can and do listen to his considered opinions and apply some weight to them unless they conflict with a Devs view.


Gauss wrote:

Finlanderboy, have you even read Mark's comments? He did not say it was 'one way'. What he did state was why they added the text. Which means, it was NOT added by a contractor. It was added by the Devs.

I swear, I think some of you aren't even reading this stuff.

BTW, James Jacobs is not one of the rules Devs, he states this himself. He has been wrong before although I can and do listen to his considered opinions and apply some weight to them unless they conflict with a Devs view.

This the pot calling the kettle black. You are better than that.


Then I do not understand how you can state that he even remotely expressed an opinion here other than 'here is why we wrote what we did in Pathfinder Unchained'.

People have REPEATEDLY stated that Mark's opinion doesn't matter. The opinion he gave is why they put in the clarification in a RULEBOOK. That is not the same as 'run it this way' without it being in a rulebook.

I am serious, it is like you didn't even read it.

And as for me reading the rules, yes, I absolutely read them, and I understand how you folks can read them the way you do. I have stated this repeatedly. I have even stated that this could use a FAQ. But at the same time none of you have afforded me (or others on our side of the coin) the same courtesy and instead have treated me like I am an idiot for having this opinion. Despite the fact that the Devs CLEARLY have the same opinion since they wrote the dang rule in Pathfinder Unchained.

It is no wonder the Devs stopped commenting in threads like this long ago and created the policy of 'our opinions in threads don't matter'. People like you ripped them a new one anytime they wrote something you didn't agree with. Heck, that even happens with FAQs and Blogs where their opinions not only matter, they are the rules.

You guys can ignore this all you want.
Are the CRB grapple rules vague and in need of a FAQ/re-write? Yes, but you guys wont even admit that much.

You can call Pathfinder Unchained 'optional' all you want. But that does NOT change the fact that Pathfinder Unchained clearly states what is the normal operation of maintain checks (as being the round after).
Does that create a new issue with AoO+Grab? Yes, but that is not really relevant to the discussion here.


Gauss wrote:

Then I do not understand how you can state that he even remotely expressed an opinion here other than 'here is why we wrote what we did in Pathfinder Unchained'.

People have REPEATEDLY stated that Mark's opinion doesn't matter. The opinion he gave is why they put in the clarification in a RULEBOOK. That is not the same as 'run it this way' without it being in a rulebook.

I am serious, it is like you didn't even read it.

And as for me reading the rules, yes, I absolutely read them, and I understand how you folks can read them the way you do. I have stated this repeatedly. I have even stated that this could use a FAQ. But at the same time none of you have afforded me (or others on our side of the coin) the same courtesy and instead have treated me like I am an idiot for having this opinion. Despite the fact that the Devs CLEARLY have the same opinion since they wrote the dang rule in Pathfinder Unchained.

It is no wonder the Devs stopped commenting in threads like this long ago and created the policy of 'our opinions in threads don't matter'. People like you ripped them a new one anytime they wrote something you didn't agree with. Heck, that even happens with FAQs and Blogs where their opinions not only matter, they are the rules.

You guys can ignore this all you want.
Are the CRB grapple rules vague and in need of a FAQ/re-write? Yes, but you guys wont even admit that much.

You can call Pathfinder Unchained 'optional' all you want. But that does NOT change the fact that Pathfinder Unchained clearly states what is the normal operation of maintain checks (as being the round after).
Does that create a new issue with AoO+Grab? Yes, but that is not really relevant to the discussion here.

Is this in response to me? You are grouping everyone that disagree with you. You are arguing a strawman defense. Not everyone disagrees with you does the things you say. Right now you are being immature and a hypocrite. You are a very smart person and capable great things.

Please do not say what I am or am not because I disagree on a ruling from you.


Here is what I said. I disagree with your understanding and value. I provided a reaosn why I feel that way.

I appreciate some Dms and the way they rule more than others. Some grey area ruling even if it does not agree with me does not effect how much I appreciate them Dming for me. This one does.

These are fair assessments I should not be stereotyped for making.


I apologize for lumping you in with the others, it appeared you were one more person jumping on the bandwagon.

Whether you disagree with my understanding is not really relevant. This conversation should have ended when the link to Mark's explanation as to why they put in the clarification in Pathfinder Unchained was posted. The fact that it did not is mind-boggling. The fact that many people are using any excuse they can to ignore that clarification can, to me, only be explained by a die-hard refusal to listen to any position other than their own.

Perhaps you are in with that lot, perhaps not. I don't know. But the fact is that the Devs have clearly indicated in a rulebook where they are heading with this and people are stubbornly resisting it. Probably because it limits an option that they want to keep.

What is more confusing is why people refuse to understand that the grapple rules in the CRB can be read multiple ways and are in need of clarification. Whether you are part of this or not, I don't know but you appear to be in that group also.

I am done with this discussion. The Devs have already ruled on it by putting the rule clarification in Pathfinder Unchained. People will ignore it as they wish (claiming it is an optional rulebook) until the Blog/FAQ comes out and then I am sure many will then ignore that (as per several Blogs/FAQs that came before) by claiming that the rules state something else. Whatever. I am reasonably sure that not one person on the 'you can use maintain during the round you initiate grapple' has agreed that this is unclear and could use a FAQ. Perhaps I missed one as it has been a longish thread, I don't know.


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

This made me initially want to agree with Gauss, but...

Quote:
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).

This made me change my mind.

1) In my opinion, each sentence stands on its own.
2) The second quote permits you to make grapple checks to continue grappling the foe with the only requirement that you are already grappling the foe.
3) While the second quote uses the words "continue grappling", I believe this is just sloppy writing and has an equivalent meaning to "maintaining the grapple". The text in parenthesis implies this.
4) With this in mind, the first quote is only stating that such a check must be made on subsequent rounds or the hold will be broken.

The Unchained quote DOES add support for the stance that grapples can only be maintained in following rounds. However, this may only be talking about normal situations. (and special rules like Greater Grapple may break the "normal" assumption)


Byakko, the Unchained quote is what is specifically being applied to Greater Grapple.

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.


Gauss wrote:

Byakko, the Unchained quote is what is specifically being applied to Greater Grapple.

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.

Ah, point granted.

I do feel this kind of conflicts with what is written in the CRB, however, which just invites confusion.

Also: Is there a FAQ request for this somewhere? There probably should be.


Byakko, I agree, there should be a FAQ request. Probably worded like this:
"Can you use Maintain Grapple in the same turn you initiate the grapple?"

As for conflicting with the CRB, it only conflicts if you believe the CRB is clear. It obviously is not clear when there are enough people on both sides of this and each side has different ways of reading it.


I do agree it isn't the clearest. It's very rare to get lengthy threads here when there is actually only one valid reading, despite the frequent claims to the contrary by its participants.

Still, the logic I posted initially is what I arrived at after studying the rules laid out in purely the CRB.
(and that was going in with a slight bias because I was hoping to agree with you, btw)


Gauss wrote:
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.

Okay, show me Jason Bulmahn's official rules post or FAQ or erratum listing Greater Grapple as an exception to the rule that you get a Move Action every round and that after a grapple has begun, subsequent checks allow you to impose other effects in addition to being able to maintain the Grapple.

The things you are saying about what Mark said about what Jason said about what Pathfinder Unchained says about what the Core Rulebook says have all so far been been either alternative rules or unsupported opinion that carry less weight than yours: your evidence and arguments have been weak, but at least you have evidence and arguments. As you have reported on them, Jason and Mark don't.

Jason Bulhmahn has to obey the rules, too. He is the Lead Developer of the game. If he can't bring himself to obey his own rules, no one should, speaking as a paying customer. If he has a problem with that, he can change the rules, apologizing for his prior editorial error and do something to compensate those of us who have already built PFS characters around the concept, you know, a factory recall like with Volkswagon, only it would only cost him Prestige Points instead of real money.


Byakko wrote:
Gauss wrote:

Byakko, the Unchained quote is what is specifically being applied to Greater Grapple.

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.

Ah, point granted.

I do feel this kind of conflicts with what is written in the CRB, however, which just invites confusion.

Also: Is there a FAQ request for this somewhere? There probably should be.

This section of Pathfinder Unchained does not seem to be legal for Pathfinder Society play.

Pathfinder Society Additional Resources wrote:

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Pathfinder Unchained

The following parts of Pathfinder Unchained are legal for play:

Classes: all classes on pages 8-39 are legal for play; Skill Unlocks: the skill unlocks and Signature Skill feat are only available through the rogue's edge class ability.

PFS Allowed Resources

Am I mistaken here?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm of the opinion that Greater Grapples DOES/SHOULD allow a grappler to pin someone in the same round.

Grand Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
I'm of the opinion that Greater Grapples DOES/SHOULD allow a grappler to pin someone in the same round.

After reading the whole thread I would have to agree with you RD. Should a FAQ or Errata be released changing how it works I won't complain. With how it is presented in both the grappling section and the various grapple feats though, I am hard pressed to think it could work any other way within the rules as is.


Gauss wrote:

Byakko, the Unchained quote is what is specifically being applied to Greater Grapple.

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.

Except, as I pointed out, you completely ignore this rule for the AoO + grab scenario.

So obviously it doesn't apply in all cases, just in cases where you deem that it does.


CWheezy wrote:

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

CWheezy, I have to cast my vote against making personal remarks against Gauss, even though he is making plenty of personal remarks against me.


@Gauss, Once again, nothing in that bit ("but you still can’t maintain a grapple until the round after you initiate it.") is official- to the point of Mark stating its just his opinion of how it should work, you're just taking words you like and ignoring words you don't (and then accusing others of doing the same).

Till there is an official change to the rules there is no reason that you cannot maintain for a pin, etc. on the same turn as the start. There is also no realistic reason as to why they can't: why cant martials have nice things; why couldn't I perform some grapple strike to pin you when grapple fights are usually won in seconds anyway; why should the rest of my actions in a turn be wasted if I have feats that are supposed to make me better at something...


Especially given the scenario:

AoO + Grab
then on your turn, maintain (standard) + maintain (move 'greater') + maintain (swift 'rapid')

Which gives you 4 grapple checks, 3 on your turn if you initiate during an AoO.

And yet, supposedly, if you initiate with a standard action on your turn, with the same feats, you get only 1 grapple check. And have to waste your move and swift action to sit there with your thumb up your butt. ;)


AwesomenessDog, apparently you are not reading my posts, or the quotes, or the rules. That 'bit' is not Mark stating his opinion. IT IS IN A RULEBOOK.


A long skim of the thread puts me in RD/scott/ozy's camp. Why can't martials have nice things? The rules aren't even that ambiguous unless you get totally hung up on a single sentence out of context.

I would expect an FAQ to rule against us though, simply because martials apparently can't have nice things.


Gauss wrote:
AwesomenessDog, apparently you are not reading my posts, or the quotes, or the rules. That 'bit' is not Mark stating his opinion. IT IS IN A RULEBOOK.

Once again, ignoring words you don't like: Optional Rule Book; not a Core Rule book. Your rule book means nothing and neither does Mark's edit separately, and they certainly don't mean anything together.

It's like saying the sky is above you then later saying that although you can look up and see the sky, it isn't yellow. The rules do not state that you cannot maintain on the initiating round, so a different book saying something that assumes you cannot maintain is both irrelevant on contradictory in which case core trumps when there is no actual rule presented. This is discrepancy is even more so in core's favor since you are presenting an unofficial clarification in an alternate rules book. Come back with some errata, Forum or blog post, or FAQ that supports you point but don't keep wasting your breath saying the same thing with nothing new to contribute.


AwesomenessDog, sure, except that you did not state "Optional Rule Book". You stated "Mark stating its just his opinion".

Whether the rulebook is optional or not it is an absolutely clear indication as to how the Devs think it works.

Again, the grapple rules in the CRB are not clear despite assertions from many on your side of things. They absolutely needs a FAQ but until we have that FAQ we do have the rule in the "optional" rulebook which clearly references how things are supposed to operate.

Does that bring up a question regarding a corner case? Sure, but that too should have a FAQ.

In any case, I am tired of correcting you guys on this. Please reference things correctly. Mark did not give his opinion, he stated why it was included in Pathfinder Unchained. Pathfinder Unchained is a (optional, whatever) rulebook which clearly states how it is supposed to work.


Gauss wrote:

Paulicus, actually I am basing it on the entire concept of maintain grapple. In the initial round there is nothing to maintain yet. It is pretty basic.

The process (based on the rules) has always been:
Round 1: Initiate grapple check(s)
Round 2+: Maintain grapple check(s)

Just because the action economy has changed does not mean that Maintain checks are suddenly part of round 1. There is nothing yet to maintain.

With that said, I stated at the beginning of my posts in this thread that a GM may be nice and let you do this.

Wow, this thread exploded. I didn't read past the first page. Just wanted to point out this sounds like circular logic, defining maintaining a grapple by the concept of maintaining a grapple.


Gauss wrote:

AwesomenessDog, sure, except that you did not state "Optional Rule Book". You stated "Mark stating its just his opinion".

Whether the rulebook is optional or not it is an absolutely clear indication as to how the Devs think it works.

Again, the grapple rules in the CRB are not clear despite assertions from many on your side of things. They absolutely needs a FAQ but until we have that FAQ we do have the rule in the "optional" rulebook which clearly references how things are supposed to operate.

Does that bring up a question regarding a corner case? Sure, but that too should have a FAQ.

In any case, I am tired of correcting you guys on this. Please reference things correctly. Mark did not give his opinion, he stated why it was included in Pathfinder Unchained. Pathfinder Unchained is a (optional, whatever) rulebook which clearly states how it is supposed to work.

No, we said optional rule book many times, you ignored it. It is an indication of what one Dev thinks and we have nothing to qualify as evidence of any other Dev's opinion. You are just saying the same thing; its not correcting, its being blatantly ignorant.


To be fair, it doesn't really matter if the rulebook is optional or not.

It seems to be giving guidance on how grappling should work *before* any rule in the (optional) book is incorporated into play.


Except nothing (related to this) is official in any way, and it does matter core vs optional, as already stated before.


AwesomenessDog, once again you took my post out of context and missed the point of my post. I was specifically addressing the post where you (again) incorrectly indicated what Mark has stated.

Do try not to misread what I wrote.

As for me ignoring "optional" I have not ignored it, I have referenced it multiple times although I have not used the word "optional" every time because it is really not relevant to the point I am making. An "optional" rulebook is still a rulebook. And as Byakko stated, it is giving guidance on how grappling should work regardless of the optional component (the stamina part). It does this by stating "but you still can't maintain a grapple until the round after you initate it" which is a reference to the normal operation of the rules.

But, it doesn't matter. You will tear this post apart, you will state I am being ignorant or illogical or that the Dev opinions do not matter or that the book is 'optional'. It doesn't really matter because the facts are this:
1) The Grapple and Greater Grapple rules in the CRB can be read either way even if you and many others don't think it can.
2) The Grapple and Greater Grapple rules could use clarification or FAQ.
3) Pathfinder Unchained's reference to how maintain works is clear and unambiguous even if it does have an unresolved corner case.

I believe the reason many people are choosing to ignore Pathfinder Unchained is because "it is optional" and those people want it to work a certain way. When a FAQ/Blog comes out those people will probably fight equally hard against it despite it's "official stance". Whatever.

Insulting me does not change those three facts. I have not ignored your opinions, I have repeatedly stated that things are unclear enough to warrant a FAQ.


Unresolved corner case? Is that how you attempt to hand wave away the glaring inconsistency?

You don't even need all of those feats to trigger this 'corner case', you just need to AoO + Grab, and then maintain the grapple on your turn. Any monster with the grab ability can trigger this so called 'corner case' in that if he wants to maintain his grapple he has to make the roll during that same round, and yet he can't as per the rules you insist are correct.

So, fundamentally, this particular rule 'clarification' is broken. To try to salvage it partway and subjectively apply it to one 'corner case' involving rapid grappler, and then ignoring it for another 'corner case' involving AoO + Grab is pure, unadulterated cherry picking.

The only thing 'clear' about the Unchained reference is that it is clearly wrong.


So this thread was a very interesting read, personal attacks aside. (seriously, though, try to keep it civil no matter what end of the argument you fall upon, mmk?)

The way I see it, the original rules text of grapple unequivocally works in a way that allows certain interactions to "maintain" the grapple in the same round as you "initiate" the grapple. Before I move on, let me just demonstrate why I believe this is so.

Quote:
As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options. If you do not have Improved Grapple, grab, or a similar ability, attempting to grapple a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll. If successful, both you and the target gain the grappled condition. If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails). Although both creatures have the grappled condition, you can, as the creature that initiated the grapple, release the grapple as a free action, removing the condition from both you and the target. (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)If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds. (3)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).

(1)As an important note for the text following the number (1), it tells you that you must do this each round. not that you can only do it once each subsequent round. It simply means that each round where you did not make a check, you must make a check in order to continue grappling.

(2)Key words here is "if your target does not break the grapple". It may say subsequent rounds, but it is talking specifically in the situation where your opponent fails to break the grapple. As written, it doesn't prevent you from making a check on the same round, but it does only give you the bonus on subsequent rounds.
(3)And finally, the only actual textual qualifier to when you make a check... "Once you are grappling an opponent". You satisfy the "once you are grappling an opponent" clause as soon as you're grappling an opponent, which is the same round as you started the grapple.

These are my reasons as to why, as the rules are written originally, Grapple can be maintained on the same turn as it is initiated. However, this is where it gets muddled.

I'm going to quote the relevant passages just so I know what I'm talking about.

combat stamina 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.
Unchained Action economy 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.

Now, The second one is at the very least arguable. While it says you must do it at the start of each turn, it doesn't say that you can only do it at the start of each turn. A good parallel is that you must eat one meal at least every 2 weeks to survive, but that doesn't mean you're limited to one meal every 2 weeks. So, by my reading, not even action economy change clarifies the rule to that.

But, now you get to the combat stamina clarification. Right there it says "you still can't". This is not in the tone of new rules text, this is in the tone of "while you can do the thing, this existing limitation is still an existing limitation."

At the very least, it is a written form of intent. Because it is text in an official book about ambiguous(at best) text, it throws my entire strict RAW reading out the window. I don't think it makes the situation any less debatable, but for me what it does is push me to the other side.

There is definitely merit to both sides of the argument, but that one little line, for me, puts me in this camp: If asked as a GM if you could do it, I would say no. However, I also believe that it is in need of official clarification by form of FAQ.


Byakko wrote:
To be fair, it doesn't really matter if the rulebook is optional or not.

Actually, it makes all the difference in the world, this made-up world.

Gauss wrote:

AwesomenessDog, sure, except that you did not state "Optional Rule Book". You stated "Mark stating its just his opinion".

Whether the rulebook is optional or not it is an absolutely clear indication as to how the Devs think it works.

If the Devs aren't officially changing the rules, they need to support their opinions within the rules just like everybody else. Pathfinder Society is not Jason's camapaign that we're playing in his mother's basement, that he is letting us play with, it is a product that he is selling. And because of that, it has to go by RAW. And it's the only Pathfinder RPG that has to go by RAW: running our own campaigns, we are all King under the Kitchen Floor, and we can rule any way we want.

Byakko wrote:
It seems to be giving guidance on how grappling should work *before* any rule in the (optional) book is incorporated into play.

Most of Unchained, including the bit about Greater Grapple you are quoting, isn't allowed in PFS. It's neither binding nor official. It's just Mark Seifter's opinion, which carries less weight than Gauss's, because he actually does quote the rules to try to prove his point. It's just that this time, contrary evidence heavily outweighs his.

Gauss wrote:
Again, the grapple rules in the CRB are not clear despite assertions from many on your side of things.

Yeah, they are clear. It's possible they could have worded it better, but you can say that about a lot of things. You can impose almost any interpretation on almost anything, if you really want to, but

The Core Rulebook says that you must roll to maintain as a Standard Action every round, or the Grappler fails to maintain the Grapple. Clearly, this is the Duration of the grapple.

The Core Rulebook clearly says that subsequent successful grapple checks allow you to impose your choice of other effects: Move, Damage, Pin, or Tie Up, in addition to allowing you to maintain the Grapple.

The Core Rulebook clearly says that if you have Greater Grapple, those subsequent Grapple checks can be taken as a Move Action.

The Core Rulebook clearly says that you get a Standard Action and a Move Action every turn.

You keep asserting that you can't make those subsequent checks on the first round of the grapple on the grounds that subsequent checks are capable qualify to maintain the grapple, but what is unclear is that any text in the rulebooks says this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok. Nothing new has been brought up on either side. It's time to call the thread done, start a new thread with a FAQ request.


Gauss has the right of it.

The book is optional, but the grapple quotes are just clarifications for the core book. This has been clarified by the highest Paizo authority there is.

PFS has zero relevance. They make all sorts of houserules, banning all sorts of items and fears and abilities.

But I agree with Rogar. Clearly nobody is going to change their mind. Let's just wait for the blog to come out.

101 to 150 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