|
| 15 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was at a PFS event a few months ago with a VC and based on the events of the scenario a discussion occurred on how the grapple condition works. The VC told me he'd look into the ruling but I haven't heard back from him so I figured I'd post here.
I'll be quoting from the PRD on rules. Let's start by looking at the grappled condition:
A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.
So you gain the grappled condition and all that applies. So what can you do in combat?
If you are grappled, you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action by making a combat maneuver check (DC equal to your opponent's CMD; this does not provoke an attack of opportunity) or Escape Artist check (with a DC equal to your opponent's CMD). If you succeed, you break the grapple and can act normally. Alternatively, if you succeed, you can become the grappler, grappling the other creature (meaning that the other creature cannot freely release the grapple without making a combat maneuver check, while you can). Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that doesn't require two hands to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you. See the grappled condition for additional details. If you are pinned, your actions are very limited. See the pinned condition in Conditions for additional details.
Here are the rules on flanking:
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.
When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking. Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus. Creatures with a reach of 0 feet can't flank an opponent.
So what's the whole deal with this "threatened" thing?
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn
Consider the following: You are in combat with an enemy and are flanking with an ally. Let's call the formation ABC, where B is the enemy and A and C are flanking. A is using a light, one handed weapon. B is a target that can be flanked. B successfully grapples A. Do A and C still receive their flank bonuses on attack rolls against B?
The VC argued that because you cannot make attacks of opportunity you cannot threaten surrounding squares. I disagree. Here's why:
The rules specify that a grappled character may make attacks with a light or one handed weapon, even against the enemy grappling them. Given that a grappled character may still make attacks on their round, it follows that anything in reach of their weapon would be considered threatened.
Let's go back to our ABC hypothetical. A and C should still receive their flanking bonuses on B because both are threatening. The rules on flanking and threatening base themselves on positioning and the ability to make an attack, not whether an attack of opportunity is a possibility.
Is the VC incorrect? Sorry for the long post I just want to help my lodge's rogues and outflankers get the bonuses they deserve.
tl;dr Can you still flank with an ally if something is grappling you?
EDIT: changed title and switched to a FAQ request on suggestion of a VL.
You are correct.
The VC is wrong. I would push it up thr chain if needed.
Later I'll try to give a breakdown on why he is wrong. I'm on my phone now.
PS: James doesn't like giving unofficial rulings anymore.
|
|
The VC is wrong. I would push it up thr chain if needed.
Later I'll try to give a breakdown on why he is wrong. I'm on my phone now.PS: James doesn't like giving unofficial rulings anymore.
The VC argues that my interpretation is based on what he called "overly reliant on RAW" and offered nothing other than that to support his position. I'm usually a RAI guy but on this issue it doesn't seem that RAI conflicts with RAW. If my friend and I are distracting you and you grab me, nothing in the rules can stop me from drawing a dagger and putting it in your stomach.
Even if we assume that you cannot threaten if you cannot make an AoO, if you have already used your AoO (assuming no combat reflexes) you couldn't threaten. This causes all sorts of unnecessary consequences, like nobody ever wanting to make AoO's so that they wouldn't give up the ability to threaten and flank.
It comes down to the nature of AoO's and flanking. AoO's punish the mover/caster because of positioning. Flanking is a reward for positioning. One does not cancel the other.
EDIT: A letter
"overly reliant on RAW"? I'm confused, what does that even mean? It kind of sounds like "relies on too complicated a rule/series of rules" mixed with a bit of "I don't like how that works".
This isn't even that complex or unclear.
While grappled you can attack any square you can reach.
If you can attack a square you threaten it.
If you threaten you can flank.
|
Even if we assume that you cannot threaten if you cannot make an AoO, if you have already used your AoO (assuming no combat reflexes) you couldn't threaten. This causes all sorts of unnecessary consequences, like nobody ever wanting to make AoO's so that they wouldn't give up the ability to threaten and flank.
If you have already used your AoO for a round, you have demonstrated an ability to make a melee attack when it is not your turn. Hence, you threaten.
If you give up your ability to make AoOs altogether, you don't threaten.
In our area, characters that grapple or use total defense do not count as threatening.
Edit: We're doing it wrong, and I should work to change that
|
|
Yeah, looking back through the other threads, I found a reference to a published book:
Using the total defense action prevents you from attacking—including making attacks of opportunity—but you still threaten foes for the purposes of flanking.
If you threaten while being totally defensive, I think you threaten while grappling.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, looking back through the other threads, I found a reference to a published book:
Using the total defense action prevents you from attacking—including making attacks of opportunity—but you still threaten foes for the purposes of flanking.If you threaten while being totally defensive, I think you threaten while grappling.
I was going to write a post correcting you but when I was previewing it I saw your updated post--glad you came around.
If anything, you have helped illustrate why we need a FAQ on this question.
|
Yeah, looking back through the other threads, I found a reference to a published book:
Using the total defense action prevents you from attacking—including making attacks of opportunity—but you still threaten foes for the purposes of flanking.If you threaten while being totally defensive, I think you threaten while grappling.I was going to write a post correcting you but when I was previewing it I saw your updated post--glad you came around.
If anything, you have helped illustrate why we need a FAQ on this question.
Well, Id expect the result of a FAQ to be No FAQ Needed, as there doesn't seem to be a lot of disagreement on the RAW.
|
|
Well, Id expect the result of a FAQ to be No FAQ Needed, as there doesn't seem to be a lot of disagreement on the RAW.Yeah, looking back through the other threads, I found a reference to a published book:
Using the total defense action prevents you from attacking—including making attacks of opportunity—but you still threaten foes for the purposes of flanking.If you threaten while being totally defensive, I think you threaten while grappling.I was going to write a post correcting you but when I was previewing it I saw your updated post--glad you came around.
If anything, you have helped illustrate why we need a FAQ on this question.
The quoted FAQ refers to total defense and threatening, a separate issue from the one discussed in this thread.
|
|
No FAQ needed. Direct your VC to this thread. If he doesn't agree, he's the one who has to prove that grappled condition DOESN'T allow flanking.
You don't know the VC. I tried to show him similar threads but he doesn't think they apply because there's no official ruling. Showing him this thread will not be sufficient and will require direct text from a valid PFS source or a FAQ.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
So this is the definition of threatened squares.
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.
This is the definition of flanking.
Let's check now with grappling. We already know (from Jakuri's quotes) that you can:
make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach
Neither the definition of threatening, flanking, or grappling state anything to say that you do not threaten squares while flanking. Since they do not, the general rule takes place (grappled creatures threaten, even though they do cannot take attacks of opportunity).
So for your A-B C situation (where B is grappling A).
1) Can A attack into B's square (yes)
2) Is A directly opposite of B from C? (yes)
#1 tells us, by the definition of threatening, that A does threaten the square, assuming that he is armed
#2 tells us that if he does threaten the square, because he is opposite from C, that he is flanking B.
So, they both get the flank. Both get +2 to hit for flanking. Both may use abilities that rely on flanking, such as sneak attack.
bring it up to a higher up if you really care about it.
|
|
FYI - a little added tidbit pointed out by MisterSlanky... in D&D grapple rules if you were grappled, you did not threaten.
Benefit of the doubt, here... it is possible probable the VC remembers those rules.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FYI - a little added tidbit pointed out by Mister Slanky... in D&D grapple rules if you were grappled, you did not threaten.
Hey now. Just because I remember the whole "you have to enter your opponents square" crap, doesn't mean you need to drag my name into it!
Quit pointing out I'm old enough to know this.
|
|
FYI - a little added tidbit pointed out by MisterSlanky... in D&D grapple rules if you were grappled, you did not threaten.
Benefit of the doubt, here... it is
possibleprobable the VC remembers those rules.
I giggled a bit.
Your VC is wrong, plain and simple.
You can't make an attack unless you can first threaten to attack. Or to put it another way (as some people on this forum have argued against this concept) if you have attacked someone in a square you must have been capable of threatening that square before the attack.
The grappled condition clearly says you can "make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach" therefore you must be threatening any creature within your reach providing you are wielding a light or one-handed weapon.
Therefore as you can threaten you have the potential to flank.
Where the VC may be going wrong is he is reading the exception as 'because you can't make an AoO whilst grappling you can't threaten'. But he is reading the exception the wrong way round. It is 'you can't make an AoO into a square you threaten because you are grappling'.
Hopefully you can walk him through it step-by-step. I don't think this needs an FAQ response, but have flagged anyway as it seems the Design Team are currently only answering the straightforward questions, like this one.
|
|
@Jakuri, this won't be FAQ'd because the rules are pretty straightforward and have been cited. If you link this thread to your VC and he refuses to accept it, you can A) bump it up the chain for your area (and perhaps post in the PFS forums asking who you would contact next) or B) accept this GM runs the rules wrong when you sit his table.
Since it's a VC and this is RAW (not even gray-area RAW), he doesn't get to use RAI-intuition. If he doesn't like it, too bad, so sad, dem's da breaks.
|
|
@Jakuri, this won't be FAQ'd because the rules are pretty straightforward and have been cited.
I don't care. It's a simple yes/no question and I don't want to call out the specific VC or take it to a higher up because I don't think this is worth "tattling" over. Getting this FAQ'd seems to be the least injurious way to go about solving this issue because I don't see the value in presenting a well-researched argument to a person who's already made up their mind.
It's a "I can explain it for you but I can't understand it for you" situation.
Well, good luck with that.
The quoted FAQ refers to total defense and threatening, a separate issue from the one discussed in this thread.Well, Id expect the result of a FAQ to be No FAQ Needed, as there doesn't seem to be a lot of disagreement on the RAW.Yeah, looking back through the other threads, I found a reference to a published book:
Using the total defense action prevents you from attacking—including making attacks of opportunity—but you still threaten foes for the purposes of flanking.If you threaten while being totally defensive, I think you threaten while grappling.I was going to write a post correcting you but when I was previewing it I saw your updated post--glad you came around.
If anything, you have helped illustrate why we need a FAQ on this question.
It sets a very clear precedent though. Inability to take an AoO is not inability to threaten.
Personally I think someone who is unwilling to learn more about the rules doesn't really qualify to be a VC... but that's not my call to make.
@Jakuri, this won't be FAQ'd because the rules are pretty straightforward and have been cited.I don't care. It's a simple yes/no question and I don't want to call out the specific VC or take it to a higher up because I don't think this is worth "tattling" over. Getting this FAQ'd seems to be the least injurious way to go about solving this issue because I don't see the value in presenting a well-researched argument to a person who's already made up their mind.
It's a "I can explain it for you but I can't understand it for you" situation.
It's not "tattling" to expect a GM operating in an official capacity to understand and apply the rules correctly.
This is one scenario where the rules are thankfully, beautifully clear. There are plenty of grey areas out there, this isn't one of them.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Getting this FAQ'd seems to be the least injurious way to go about solving this issue
If you think that will happen in less than 3 years of threads created or a heated brutal slug fest on the forums, I think you will be sadly mistaken.
There are literally hundreds of other issues that come up more often, have way more passionate debate on how they work, and have yet to be FAQ'd.
I'll FAQ it because reasons.
To be honest, this stems from the fact that Threatening isn't precisely defined. It says "any squares into which you can make a melee attack, even if it's not your turn."
A lot of people will argue that being able to make attacks outside your turn would include the ability for Attacks of Opportunity. This would technically be incorrect, as the ability to make an attack outside your turn can just as easily be accomplished with a Readied Action (or certain Immediate Actions).
If the intent is that Attacks of Opportunity are a requirement to be considered Threatening, it's not clearly defined, and it needs to be. As it sits, Attacks of Opportunity aren't specifically mentioned, and they aren't the only means to make attacks outside your turn, one of which is commonly available to all characters.
So yes, per the current rules, you should be able to Threaten while Grappled, which means you can still provide a Flank while Grappled.
Neither the flanking rules nor the threaten rules ever refer to AoOs so it seems clear to me that you can flank when grappled. Otherwise why say you can't take AoOs when grappled, the rules would just say you don't threaten.
Except for the fact that the definition of "threaten" comes under the heading of Attacks of Opportunity.
Also, searching the CRB (pdf version) for the concept of "threatening a square" shows that this text appears nearly 50 times. Of those, the only places that talk about threatening in isolation from are 1) under the bloodline power Long Limbs, 2) the whip weapon description, 3) the shooting into melee rules, and 4) the flanking rules. Everywhere else, the concept of "threatening an area" is always discussed alongside attacks of opportunity. That's more than 90% of the time.
It's completely reasonable to read this to mean that the term "threaten" only has any meaning within the context of "Attack of Opportunity," and I know a lot of GMs who read it exactly that way. Whether that's the developers' intent is a completely different question, but it's not as obvious as people seem to think.
|
|
I agree with the common opinion here; you don't stop flanking if you take an AoO for example.
Since it's confusing and surprising to people running into this the first time, and generates a lot of questions, an FAQ confirming the normal rule might be good though. Not a rule-fixing FAQ, but a rule-affirming one.
Neither the flanking rules nor the threaten rules ever refer to AoOs so it seems clear to me that you can flank when grappled. Otherwise why say you can't take AoOs when grappled, the rules would just say you don't threaten.Except for the fact that the definition of "threaten" comes under the heading of Attacks of Opportunity.
Also, searching the CRB (pdf version) for the concept of "threatening a square" shows that this text appears nearly 50 times. Of those, the only places that talk about threatening in isolation from are 1) under the bloodline power Long Limbs, 2) the whip weapon description, 3) the shooting into melee rules, and 4) the flanking rules. Everywhere else, the concept of "threatening an area" is always discussed alongside attacks of opportunity. That's more than 90% of the time.
It's completely reasonable to read this to mean that the term "threaten" only has any meaning within the context of "Attack of Opportunity," and I know a lot of GMs who read it exactly that way. Whether that's the developers' intent is a completely different question, but it's not as obvious as people seem to think.
So would you say that if you've used up all your attacks of opportunity for the round (for example, the one that most characters have), you would then no longer be able to flank with your allies?
Seems to me the FAQ should really be spelling out when you threaten and clarifying that grappling does not prevent you from threatening. Spell out that you continue to threaten even if you can't take an Attack of Opportunity with all the things that means in terms of Acrobatics checks, flanking, etc.