Can the Windy Escape spell be used to get out of a grapple from an Evard's Black Tentacle spell?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 151 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:
It's sad to know that many players need them to be.

Who are you talking about?

Sczarni

TOZ wrote:
Remember the 10ft pit.

I'll never forget it.

Not because I ended up on the wrong side of the FAQ, but because it still makes -zero- sense to me.

Are you in favor of an FAQ stating that dead characters can't act?

Are you in favor of an FAQ stating that gaseous creatures can't be grappled?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Nope. I ignore the FAQ now.

Sczarni

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
It's sad to know that many players need them to be.
Who are you talking about?

Yourself, and a good half of the ppl in this thread.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:
Yourself, and a good half of the ppl in this thread.

Then, as usual, you assume much that isn't true.

Sczarni

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Nope. I ignore the FAQ now.

Did you post that with the wrong alias?

Shadow Lodge

All aliases are one.

Sczarni

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Yourself, and a good half of the ppl in this thread.
Then, as usual, you assume much that isn't true.

I think we've been in this position before, so for clarity's sake:

After reading SKR's comment, do you believe it is possible to grapple:

1) someone under the effects of gaseous form?
2) an Air Elemental?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:

After reading SKR's comment, do you believe it is possible to grapple:

1) someone under the effects of gaseous form?
2) an Air Elemental?

Yes.

Sczarni

Oh, and the "as usual" hurt.

I pride myself on trying NOT to make assumptions.

I'm generally in favor of gathering evidence before coming to my initial conclusions.

Sczarni

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

After reading SKR's comment, do you believe it is possible to grapple:

1) someone under the effects of gaseous form?
2) an Air Elemental?

Yes.

So, to what end?

What becomes so obvious that it need not be in print?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:
Oh, and the "as usual" hurt.

I would make a joke about you having feelings, but I do think I should apologize for that. That wasn't tactful discussion.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:
What becomes so obvious that it need not be in print?

Nothing needs to be printed. There just IS what is printed.


nennafir wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:
"Obvious to whom?"

SKR evidently.

Seriously, please read previous dev quotes on this.

They all point toward windy escape escaping a grapple. Now, granted, these are quotes by a now former dev--and who knows what current devs think. Pretending that the first sentence of the spell description is all fluff and should therefore be ignored, however, is disingenuous.

Er... I was the one who quoted SKR, and he was speaking of Gaseous Form, not Windy Escape.

The devil of Windy Escape is in the details.

It avoids ONE attack.

So a barbarian full-round attacking with four hits would hit the second, third, and fourth time.

Since the creature is "insubstantial" for significantly less than a round, stating that it is "obvious" it can't be grappled seems more disingenuous. "I want it to work that way, so it should" is a poor argument.

I can see both sides of the argument. The time it takes for an attack to pass through you is well under a second. Wrestling to get a hold of a body part takes significantly longer than that. So the grapple works. A grapple is "an attack", so it passes "harmlessly through you". So the grapple fails.

I respect both sides of the argument.

I don't respect people claiming that one side is so obvious that the intelligence of those arguing against it is in question.

EDIT: And in a rules discussion, if the spell specifically says, "This spell prevents these status effects," and one side's argument is, "And it should also prevent these additional effects that the developers didn't list because they're so obvious they didn't need to be listed," I think there's a strong burden of proof on that side, SKR's snarky comment on Gaseous Form notwithstanding.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

According to the thread's title, the spell that gets you out of a grapple would have to be either Grease or Liberating Command.
Yeah, I can see it look obvious that "You can't grab a gas", but since the spell description lists a few specific things to which you become immune, it'd be up to the GM and players to explain why the spell does not protect you against other things.
The way I'd explain it, either you have to remain contiguous, or you just don't stay vaporous for long enough, and turn back while your opponent's still trying to standard-action grapple you.

As the OP stated, the non magical attack that failed to do more than 10 hp thusly passed right through, so the grapple never came into it. As the tentacles come from a spell, it's grapple damage should overcome DR/magic.

But everything's gotten so polarized, everyone's either missing the obvious or a power-gamer of selective enforcement. I know this is a point of contention, but "Well, what if I did that to you, let's say, Aspect of the Falcon doesn't really make you grow feathers, that's just fluff," is losing sight of the point.

Also, because of elemental oddity, it's possible to catch a water elemental in a net, or to wrestle a fire elemental. I'd want my PC to be able to do it, mainly for bragging material.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The reason I just can't get let go of this argument is that if the first sentence is operative to avoid a particular attack then there is literally no purpose to the defenses the spell provides to that attack, because the attack would miss. Why would a spell be written in this way? Is this 100% necessarily a correct interpretation. No. Is it very very likely the rules as intended by the author were that you are provided the defenses you are listed; especially because the defenses it provides are very specific and game terminology,

Why would you think it is equally reasonable to interpret any ambiguity in a way that makes the entire spell incoherent?


NobodysHome wrote:
nennafir wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:
"Obvious to whom?"

SKR evidently.

Seriously, please read previous dev quotes on this.

They all point toward windy escape escaping a grapple. Now, granted, these are quotes by a now former dev--and who knows what current devs think. Pretending that the first sentence of the spell description is all fluff and should therefore be ignored, however, is disingenuous.

Er... I was the one who quoted SKR, and he was speaking of Gaseous Form, not Windy Escape.

The devil of Windy Escape is in the details.

It avoids ONE attack.

So a barbarian full-round attacking with four hits would hit the second, third, and fourth time.

Since the creature is "insubstantial" for significantly less than a round, stating that it is "obvious" it can't be grappled seems more disingenuous. "I want it to work that way, so it should" is a poor argument.

I can see both sides of the argument. The time it takes for an attack to pass through you is well under a second. Wrestling to get a hold of a body part takes significantly longer than that. So the grapple works. A grapple is "an attack", so it passes "harmlessly through you". So the grapple fails.

I respect both sides of the argument.

I don't respect people claiming that one side is so obvious that the intelligence of those arguing against it is in question.

EDIT: And in a rules discussion, if the spell specifically says, "This spell prevents these status effects," and one side's argument is, "And it should also prevent these additional effects that the developers didn't list because they're so obvious they didn't need to be listed," I think there's a strong burden of proof on that side, SKR's snarky comment on Gaseous Form notwithstanding.

A grapple is considered an attack by the rules. So if it lets you avoid one attack it would let you avoid one grapple.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
johnlocke90 wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:
nennafir wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:
"Obvious to whom?"

SKR evidently.

Seriously, please read previous dev quotes on this.

They all point toward windy escape escaping a grapple. Now, granted, these are quotes by a now former dev--and who knows what current devs think. Pretending that the first sentence of the spell description is all fluff and should therefore be ignored, however, is disingenuous.

Er... I was the one who quoted SKR, and he was speaking of Gaseous Form, not Windy Escape.

The devil of Windy Escape is in the details.

It avoids ONE attack.

So a barbarian full-round attacking with four hits would hit the second, third, and fourth time.

Since the creature is "insubstantial" for significantly less than a round, stating that it is "obvious" it can't be grappled seems more disingenuous. "I want it to work that way, so it should" is a poor argument.

I can see both sides of the argument. The time it takes for an attack to pass through you is well under a second. Wrestling to get a hold of a body part takes significantly longer than that. So the grapple works. A grapple is "an attack", so it passes "harmlessly through you". So the grapple fails.

I respect both sides of the argument.

I don't respect people claiming that one side is so obvious that the intelligence of those arguing against it is in question.

EDIT: And in a rules discussion, if the spell specifically says, "This spell prevents these status effects," and one side's argument is, "And it should also prevent these additional effects that the developers didn't list because they're so obvious they didn't need to be listed," I think there's a strong burden of proof on that side, SKR's snarky comment on Gaseous Form notwithstanding.

A grapple is considered an attack by the rules. So if it lets you avoid one attack it would let you avoid one grapple.

Except by the rules it does not let you avoid the attack, it gives you DR vs said attack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Categorically, Paizo's rules are rather weak compared to Wizard's which causes these problems. WotC seemed to have no problem going into examples and having explanations along the way while presenting rules. It made them more general while pinning down the specifics. This made them very easy to reason about when you mixed things together. Paizo eschews such things outside of one or two introductory sentences and sticks purely to specifics which doesn't help at all when you start getting into disparate parts of the system interacting.

That's clearly not to say Wizard's didn't need to ever further explain or change their content. I'm saying the style expressed in their writing seems to allow for more natural readings about how things interact. I also believe Paizo rests upon that legacy way, way too much when judging the expectations of its current playerbase. Like I've said lots of times, before coming to Pathfinder, my D&D experience at all was basically nonexistent. I had zero prior "obvious" understandings of things and have been shown I've had a lot of stupid conclusions about the rules starting out.

That said, it should be no surprise some people come to the conclusions they do. None at all. What I disagreed with Sean most was the "obviousness" of given text. The argument that people expect a legalese type document is farcical and only serves to insult people genuinely wanting explanations. Just because the vast majority of us didn't work on D&D rules in the mothership for years on end doesn't change the sincerity of wanting to know how things interact. It, in fact, makes it more incumbant upon you (individually as a designer and as a company) to make sure things are clear. I don't expect clauses, sub clauses, and so on. Just be liberal with examples that bookend what a particular ability can and can't do. I can fill in the rest. THEN, there could be room for "that's obvious" type responses. As is, there really isn't.


The only problem I have with SKR's ruling is that Golarian isn't earth, it doesn't work on the same principals as earth. It is a land of fantastical magic that breaks so expectations. Obviously people take this too far, but there are some niche little cases that ruin other things. Sure, I can't restrain air with my hands, but I don't have access to enchanted items, super-human feats of power, or the ability to warp reality at my whim. Now, to be fair, if a character can grapple a gaseous creature that would probably be on the grappler's stat block.

My point is that it's that there are so many rules in the system that ignore logic, that logic should not be the first place you look. But it is something you should consider, especially mid session when you don't want to waste time looking for a rule.


Fluid Form lets you squeeze through a crack. Dust and Sound Form let you be three sizes smaller for purposes of squeezing and give some incorporeal benefits. Do they also make you immune to grappling?


Diego Rossi wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

But that part has no in game effect. Otherwise I could ready a gust of wind spell for the moment in which you become vaporous and insubstantial and disperse you body over a large area, effectively disintegrating you when you try to reform.

As you see, everyone can invent new powers to existing spells and try to justify them with "logic".

Why couldn't you ready a Gust of Wind? It's a standard action to cast, it should work as normal.

I don't know where you're getting the notion that Gust of Wind disintegrates gases, though. The spell plainly states that gases and vapors are pushed to the edge of it's range.

In the same location where Kaliel Windstorm "find" the notion that Windy escape or being an air elemental make you immune to a grapple attempt.

I.e. it is made completely of dream stuff.

I was simply showing what is the result of attempting to apply RL logic to the game.
Kaliel Windstorm feel that,in game, a gaseous creature can't be grappled (and that being gaseous is sufficient, you don't need extra text like in gaseous form). By the same kind of logic if you are subject to a Gust of wind wile in gaseous form your molecules are dispersed on a wide area. When you reform your body is a myriad of small pieces dispersed in a volume of several cubic meters. Something that would dismember you.

Except Windy Escape doesn't state how it interacts with grapples. Gust of Wind explicitly states how it intereacts with gases and vapors.

Applying common sense is necessary in PF when the rules are silent, but when they are not, common sense shouldn't contradict the rules.

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Kaliel Windstorm wrote:

Okay you guys win. Grapples magically overcome Windy Escape in your worlds.

Yaaaaaay.

For the rest of us I stick by my original opinion, you can't grapple something vaporous, to ignore that is to pick and tweak and choose what you want out of the rule while ignoring the intent of the spell.

I will leave this argument be if you can explain why the spell grants DR/10 magic against an attack that misses you.

DR/10 Magic is only part of the effect of Windy Escape. Read the whole spell, not just what you think the "Crunch" is. It's all in the Rule Book. It's ALL "Rules"

Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Windy Escape does not make you gaseous long enough to avoid the grapple. The grapple attempt is not a brief enough attack.

I was about to say this. Windy Escape is a quick effect that lets one attack through, the length of time it takes a blade to slice through you or an arrow to shoot through you. It doesn't help against a second such attack in teh same round.

A grapple isn't a quick punch that if it lands initiates a grapple. It's an extended attempt to, well, grapple (violently hug) someone. A brief instant of gaseousness isn't going to make you slip through and blow your chance for the entire round.

That would be true for a Maneuver Master Monk, who can grapple as quickly as he can attack. For most characters, interrupting even part of their grapple attempt blows their only chance for the entire round.

Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
Fluid Form lets you squeeze through a crack. Dust and Sound Form let you be three sizes smaller for purposes of squeezing and give some incorporeal benefits. Do they also make you immune to grappling?

Fluid Form, apparently not. You can squeeze through cracks but not anything larger than a crack, because, uhh... reasons, I guess.

Sonic Form and Dust Form both unquestionably make you immune to grappling. That's how Incorporeal works.

NobodysHome wrote:

Ah, well. I guess I shouldn't mention Circle of Death's first sentence then, should I?

PRD wrote:
Circle of death snuffs out the life force of living creatures, killing them instantly.

Since there are no conditions on the first sentence, I guess that makes it the most powerful 6th-level spell in the game...

Excellent Strawman! Nobody's arguing Windy Escape should directly contradict itself. Nice try, though.


Buri Reborn wrote:
Categorically, Paizo's rules are rather weak compared to Wizard's which causes these problems. WotC seemed to have no problem going into examples and having explanations along the way while presenting rules. It made them more general while pinning down the specifics. This made them very easy to reason about when you mixed things together. Paizo eschews such things outside of one or two introductory sentences and sticks purely to specifics which doesn't help at all when you start getting into disparate parts of the system interacting.

To be fair, Paizo eschewed using examples because when it came to things like the CRB, Bestiary, and other early rulebooks, they were prohibited from using those specific references and examples by copyright law.

The CRB is taken directly from the open source documents shared by WotC. Unlike D&D 3.5's rulebooks, the open source documents omitted a number of direct references and examples within the rules text. So particularly when it came to the early books, Paizo was fairly well prohibited from doing the same. Perhaps not entirely, but largely.


Quantum Steve wrote:
Excellent Strawman! Nobody's arguing Windy Escape should directly contradict itself. Nice try, though.

I don't know about that.

Windy Escape wrote:
You respond to an attack by briefly becoming vaporous and insubstantial, allowing the attack to pass harmlessly through you. You gain DR 10/magic against this attack....

"The attack passes harmless through you" and "You can be damaged by that [nonmagical] attack if it does more than 10 damage" are actually contradictory. One says you can't be hurt, the other says you can be hurt, just not as much.

Either you ignore one attack or you don't. It's pretty clear from the text that you don't just straight up ignore one attack by using Windy Escape; you get damage reduction versus one attack and only get to completely ignore it if the damage caused is 10 or less.


fretgod99 wrote:

To be fair, Paizo eschewed using examples because when it came to things like the CRB, Bestiary, and other early rulebooks, they were prohibited from using those specific references and examples by copyright law.

The CRB is taken directly from the open source documents shared by WotC. Unlike D&D 3.5's rulebooks, the open source documents omitted a number of direct references and examples within the rules text. So particularly when it came to the early books, Paizo was fairly well prohibited from doing the same. Perhaps not entirely, but largely.

Copyright law doesn't say anywhere you can't explain sourced text. Sure, take the OGL text, but give your own examples. It's not hard. Plus, with references, there's no reason you can't update the reference to match the book it's in.

I know you weren't trying to be all "here's my law degree and here's why that can't happen," but that reasoning just doesn't hold. If that's a reason they've stated in the past, they're either simply wrong or didn't feel like doing the work while releasing the product and wanted a plausible sounding explanation.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I believe the official stance is that wordcount is precious and examples usually take up too much of it.


Buri Reborn wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

To be fair, Paizo eschewed using examples because when it came to things like the CRB, Bestiary, and other early rulebooks, they were prohibited from using those specific references and examples by copyright law.

The CRB is taken directly from the open source documents shared by WotC. Unlike D&D 3.5's rulebooks, the open source documents omitted a number of direct references and examples within the rules text. So particularly when it came to the early books, Paizo was fairly well prohibited from doing the same. Perhaps not entirely, but largely.

Copyright law doesn't say anywhere you can't explain sourced text. Sure, take the OGL text, but give your own examples. It's not hard. Plus, with references, there's no reason you can't update the reference to match the book it's in.

I know you weren't trying to be all "here's my law degree and here's why that can't happen," but that reasoning just doesn't hold. If that's a reason they've stated in the past, they're either simply wrong or didn't feel like doing the work while releasing the product and wanted a plausible sounding explanation.

Curious take, but whatever. Nobody released that as the reason. It's an inference I drew after comparing material between editions. Doesn't mean it necessarily is the only reason it occurred.

Brevity, word count, and the fact that the most relevant examples were prohibited from use were probably all pretty important factors. It would seem odd if a few places in the CRB had examples but most did not. Often times the relevant examples (especially early on) were relatively few in number.

Liberty's Edge

Nefreet wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Kaliel Windstorm wrote:
Apparently the paizo game designers should note in their spells things like...

...rules. Which is what this forum is about.

All that speculation up thread? Perfectly reasonable rulings.

But not rules.

At what point do "obvious" realities (such as the inability to grapple air) need to be put in print?

Do we really need to have the discussion about decapitated PCs remaining active, again?

So, in your mind, air elemental now can pass trough tiny cracks, can't open doors, can't carry something or someone, can't grapple, can't enter water (read gaseous form for that), and so on?

And fire elementals? No solid form, for sure, even more than a creature made of gas. Clearly our characters can pass though them (taking some fire damage), they have no solid form.

A water elemental is a bit more solid, but still a puddle of water.

Paizo should really expand the type description if that is true.

Liberty's Edge

nennafir wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:
"Obvious to whom?"

SKR evidently.

Seriously, please read previous dev quotes on this.

They all point toward windy escape escaping a grapple. Now, granted, these are quotes by a now former dev--and who knows what current devs think. Pretending that the first sentence of the spell description is all fluff and should therefore be ignored, however, is disingenuous.

No, they point out at the text that windy escape lack and gaseous form has: "A gaseous creature can't run, but it can fly at a speed of 10 feet and automatically succeeds on all Fly skill checks. It can pass through small holes or narrow openings, even mere cracks, with all it was wearing or holding in its hands, as long as the spell persists.

Windy escape lack that text as it don't make you gaseous long enough to escape a grapple.

Nefreet wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Yourself, and a good half of the ppl in this thread.
Then, as usual, you assume much that isn't true.

I think we've been in this position before, so for clarity's sake:

After reading SKR's comment, do you believe it is possible to grapple:

1) someone under the effects of gaseous form?

No. the text cited above allow him to escape a grapple.

Nefreet wrote:


2) an Air Elemental?

Yes. None in the creature description say that it is insubstantial and can move trough tiny cracks,

It is a creature of solidly bind together air.

Liberty's Edge

Quantum Steve wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

But that part has no in game effect. Otherwise I could ready a gust of wind spell for the moment in which you become vaporous and insubstantial and disperse you body over a large area, effectively disintegrating you when you try to reform.

As you see, everyone can invent new powers to existing spells and try to justify them with "logic".

Why couldn't you ready a Gust of Wind? It's a standard action to cast, it should work as normal.

I don't know where you're getting the notion that Gust of Wind disintegrates gases, though. The spell plainly states that gases and vapors are pushed to the edge of it's range.

In the same location where Kaliel Windstorm "find" the notion that Windy escape or being an air elemental make you immune to a grapple attempt.

I.e. it is made completely of dream stuff.

I was simply showing what is the result of attempting to apply RL logic to the game.
Kaliel Windstorm feel that,in game, a gaseous creature can't be grappled (and that being gaseous is sufficient, you don't need extra text like in gaseous form). By the same kind of logic if you are subject to a Gust of wind wile in gaseous form your molecules are dispersed on a wide area. When you reform your body is a myriad of small pieces dispersed in a volume of several cubic meters. Something that would dismember you.

Except Windy Escape doesn't state how it interacts with grapples. Gust of Wind explicitly states how it intereacts with gases and vapors.

Applying common sense is necessary in PF when the rules are silent, but when they are not, common sense shouldn't contradict the rules.

Let's play the same game that has been played with Windy escape.

Gust of wind wrote:
In addition to the effects noted, a gust of wind can do anything that a sudden blast of wind would be expected to do.

What will do a sudden gust of wind to a insubstantial patch of gases? disperse it.

Sure, the further text will limit how far it is dispersed,

Gust of wind wrote:
blow gases or vapors to the edge of its range.

but by Kaliel Windstorm logic you still get the part where it do what a sudden blast of wind will do to a gas.

If you support that kind of logic you should always use it, not only when it is convenient.

Liberty's Edge

@Nefreet, just as a curiosity:
As you feel that Air elementals can't grapple, what you think about Invisible stalkers and Aerial servants?
One of the tasks for which they are rutinely summoned is to retieve items. How can they do that if they can't manipulate objects as they are made of gases?

Especially the Aerial servant, as its attack routine is:

Melee 2 slams +19 (2d8+6 plus grab)
Special Attacks constrict (2d8+6), smother, sneak attack +2d6, wind blast

So it can grapple someone and constrict him, but the grappled creature can't use a combat maneuver to free himself as the Aerial servant can't be grappled?

Sczarni

Where are you getting these extrapolations from?

They certainly weren't stated by me.

I would think that part of something being "obvious" would include abilities in print.

I'm not going to be taking away abilities that creatures are clearly intended to have.

Quit reaching. You're making this needlessly difficult.

Sczarni

Diego Rossi wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
1) someone under the effects of gaseous form?

No.

Nefreet wrote:
2) an Air Elemental?
Yes.

These cannot be different answers.

Silver Crusade

Nefreet wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
1) someone under the effects of gaseous form?

No.

Nefreet wrote:
2) an Air Elemental?
Yes.
These cannot be different answers.

gaseous form doesn't give you the qualities of an air elemental or turn you into one, so yes, yes they can.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
1) someone under the effects of gaseous form?

No.

Nefreet wrote:
2) an Air Elemental?
Yes.
These cannot be different answers.

Why? Because you are imposing your rules?

They can be different, they are different.

Gaseous form "a creature in gaseous form can pass through small holes or narrow openings, even mere cracks, with all it was wearing or holding in its hands, as long as the spell persists.

Air elemental: that text don't exist.

Invisible Stalker: N Medium outsider (air, elemental, extraplanar)
i.e an air elemental is often summoned to retrieve objects.

Aerial Servant: Medium outsider (air, elemental, extraplanar)
Again, an air elemental, it has grab and constrict.

Belker: Large outsider (air, elemental, evil)
another air elemental
It [b]need[/b[] a special ability to become gaseous!

Quote:
Smoke Form (Su) A belker can switch from its normal form to one of pure smoke or back again a swift action. It can spend up to 20 rounds per day in smoke form. In smoke form, the belker acts as if under the effects of a gaseous form spell, except that it retains its natural fly speed of 50 feet (perfect).

So Paizo think that air elementals are solid. They need a special ability to take a non solid form.

Your problem is that you have decided unilaterally that air elementals aren't solid, while Pathfinder rules assume the opposite. so far you have been unable to prove that there is some rule supporting your position, while I have show several examples where air elementals need to be solid to do what they normally do.

Sczarni

My position is not a creation out of thin air (pun intended).

It's a recent transition after reading SKR's comment.

That is what I have as supporting evidence.

If you deny his statement, then you must also deny that gaseous form prevents grapples.

You can't have it both ways.

The ability of gaseous form to prevent being grappled does not exist anywhere beyond his statement.

Silver Crusade

Nefreet wrote:

My position is not a creation out of thin air (pun intended).

It's a recent transition after reading SKR's comment.

That is what I have as supporting evidence.

If you deny his statement, then you must also deny that gaseous form prevents grapples.

You can't have it both ways.

The ability of gaseous form to prevent being grappled does not exist anywhere beyond his statement.

gaseous form and windy escape are two different spells.

gaseous form goes into detail about how you are intangible.

Sczarni

Rysky wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

My position is not a creation out of thin air (pun intended).

It's a recent transition after reading SKR's comment.

That is what I have as supporting evidence.

If you deny his statement, then you must also deny that gaseous form prevents grapples.

You can't have it both ways.

The ability of gaseous form to prevent being grappled does not exist anywhere beyond his statement.

gaseous form goes into detail about how you are intangible.

...but does not include anything about protection from grapples.

That's in SKR's comment.

The Exchange

Nefreet wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

My position is not a creation out of thin air (pun intended).

It's a recent transition after reading SKR's comment.

That is what I have as supporting evidence.

If you deny his statement, then you must also deny that gaseous form prevents grapples.

You can't have it both ways.

The ability of gaseous form to prevent being grappled does not exist anywhere beyond his statement.

gaseous form goes into detail about how you are intangible.

...but does not include anything about protection from grapples.

That's in SKR's comment.

SKR comments that you can't grapple something you can't hold — a gas. Elementals are not gaseous, and a person affected by Windy Escape is gaseous only briefly, which puts it in the realm of GM ruling as to whether that is sufficient to foil a grapple.

Liberty's Edge

Nefreet wrote:

My position is not a creation out of thin air (pun intended).

It's a recent transition after reading SKR's comment.

That is what I have as supporting evidence.

If you deny his statement, then you must also deny that gaseous form prevents grapples.

You can't have it both ways.

The ability of gaseous form to prevent being grappled does not exist anywhere beyond his statement.

Nefreet, SKR statement is valid for Gaseous form. Full stop. He cited almost verbatim the spell text:

SKR: "A centipede is not a gas. You can't grapple a gaseous creature, that's obvious and we shouldn't need to state that in the rules. èb]If a gaseous creature can slip through any crack because it's gaseous, it can easily slip through the gaps between your fingers or arms.[/b]"

Gaseous form: "It can pass through small holes or narrow openings, even mere cracks, with all it was wearing or holding in its hands, as long as the spell persists."

That applies to a gaseous creature. now try to find the piece of text that say that an air elemental is a gaseous creature.
The closest thing that you can find make it a cloud, not a gas: "This cloud-like creature has dark hollows reminiscent of eyes and a mouth, and a howling wind whips it into ominous shapes."

You ae trying to apply RL "logic", but it don't work as in RL we can't have a creature made of a single element.

Now look the creature and the rules.
Pathfinder has the rules to simulate a creature made of inconsistent gases? Yes, it is Incorporeal Universal Monster Rule. You know, that thing where a creature has no solid body, can't grapple or be grappled, can't apply its strength bonus to damage, etc., etc.

So if Paizo wanted a an Air elemental made of inconsistent gases, they had the way to depict it.
Instead we have a creature that applies its strength bonus to damage, with several variants that need a physical body to do what they do and
with special rules for the time when they are not solid (both the belker and the standard air elemental in whirlwind form).

If the not solid air elemental was something intended it would have the incorporeal subtype. Or some specific rule.
Without it it is solid.

Liberty's Edge

I dunno...

Without SKRs comment, I would have said Windy Escape did NOT escape grapples.

With it, I have to conclude that it CAN escape grapples. The wording of the abilities is almost identical (despite Diego Rossi's attempt to highlight the differences--without ever quoting the vast blocks of text where they are almost identical.)

I am not playing a Sylph and do not plan on doing so. I think the ability is too powerful. But absent any ruling from "higher powers" I think a logically minded person has to let windy escape escape grapples.

Liberty's Edge

nennafir wrote:

I dunno...

Without SKRs comment, I would have said Windy Escape did NOT escape grapples.

With it, I have to conclude that it CAN escape grapples. The wording of the abilities is almost identical (despite Diego Rossi's attempt to highlight the differences--without ever quoting the vast blocks of text where they are almost identical.)

I am not playing a Sylph and do not plan on doing so. I think the ability is too powerful. But absent any ruling from "higher powers" I think a logically minded person has to let windy escape escape grapples.

Can you find the part where Windy escape say that you can pass trough mere cracks?

I will bold the parts where the text is the same for you.

Gaseous Form wrote:


The subject and all its gear become insubstantial, misty, and translucent.
Its material armor (including natural armor) becomes worthless, though its size, Dexterity, deflection bonuses, and armor bonuses from force effects still apply. The subject gains DR 10/magic and becomes immune to poison, sneak attacks, and critical hits. It can't attack or cast spells with verbal, somatic, material, or focus components while in gaseous form. This does not rule out the use of certain spells that the subject may have prepared using the feats Silent Spell, Still Spell, and Eschew Materials. The subject also loses supernatural abilities while in gaseous form. If it has a touch spell ready to use, that spell is discharged harmlessly when the gaseous form spell takes effect.

A gaseous creature can't run, but it can fly at a speed of 10 feet and automatically succeeds on all Fly skill checks. It can pass through small holes or narrow openings, even mere cracks, with all it was wearing or holding in its hands, as long as the spell persists. The creature is subject to the effects of wind, and it can't enter water or other liquid. It also can't manipulate objects or activate items, even those carried along with its gaseous form. Continuously active items remain active, though in some cases their effects may be moot.

Windy Escape wrote:


You respond to an attack by briefly becoming vaporous and insubstantial, allowing the attack to pass harmlessly through you. You gain DR 10/magic against this attack and are immune to any poison, sneak attacks, or critical hit effect from that attack.

You cannot use windy escape against an attack of opportunity you provoked by casting a spell, using a spell-like ability, or using any other magical ability that provokes an attack of opportunity when used.

Your armor and natural armor become worthless when you cast Windy escape?

You can't attack if you cast it if you attacker provoke an AoO?
You are flying for the brief time ti last, and so are immune to trip attacks?
You can cast it to avoid being disarmed, as you are insubstantial and can't be touched?

You guys are giving this spell a lot of powers that it hasn't.

The Exchange

nennafir wrote:

Without SKRs comment, I would have said Windy Escape did NOT escape grapples.

With it, I have to conclude that it CAN escape grapples. The wording of the abilities is almost identical (despite Diego Rossi's attempt to highlight the differences--without ever quoting the vast blocks of text where they are almost identical.)

The key word in the text is 'briefly'. You become insubstantial for just long enough to avoid (most of) a weapon hit. It doesn't say you can move in that form, and you reform with the grapplers limbs still around you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it's important to realize exact timings are vague at best. There aren't any rules around how much time an immediate action takes during a 6 second round. At best, we have some relative measures of ease and quickness. So, stressing the word brief doesn't really mean anything. Any quickened spell delivers its full effect as a swift so some pretty spectacular stuff can happen in that time frame. Escaping a grapple in that time isn't weird or special.

Silver Crusade

Fromper wrote:

No, because Evard is a trademarked name of a character that doesn't exist in Pathfinder.

As others have said, Windy Escape's mechanical benefit is just DR, which doesn't affect grappling.

Fromper I am guessing Roy Greenhilt, your avatar image, most likely witnessed this member of the Linear guild Zz'dtri get dragged off the comic strip by copyright lawyers. so I can understand why the copyright lawyers might show up. I found that to be a very amusing moment in the comic strip.

Fromper and Diego Rossi I understand that Paizo can't use Wotc's IP, like the name "Evard" in their published materiel. I also understand that they cant use Mordenkainen, Otto, Tasha, Bigby, nor Melf....I understand they cant use carrion crawlers beholders and mind flayers in their published materiel.

But I am not a publisher, I am just a private person. In my home pathfinder games, I use beholders and mind flayers....and with the Rise of the Rune Lords game I am running, I am planning an encounter where the PCs in my game will have to face a carrion crawler. I guess I use those Greyhawk mage names out of habit. I also like "Tenser's floating disc" more then "Floating disc". I feel it ads more flavor.

Diego Rossi, I understand how my use of Evard in the black tentacle spell would give the impression that I don't understand the differences between editions.

The Exchange

Buri Reborn wrote:
I think it's important to realize exact timings are vague at best. There aren't any rules around how much time an immediate action takes during a 6 second round. At best, we have some relative measures of ease and quickness. So, stressing the word brief doesn't really mean anything. Any quickened spell delivers its full effect as a swift so some pretty spectacular stuff can happen in that time frame. Escaping a grapple in that time isn't weird or special.

Unless the word was deliberately chosen to show that you are not insubstantial for long enough to move, or to do anything other than gain some DR against a specific melee attack, so that the spell wasn't abused as a poor-man's gaseous form.


Just saying, you can totally break a grapple as a swift action. The duration of the attack is meaningless.

Sovereign Court

brock, no the other one... wrote:
SKR comments that you can't grapple something you can't hold — a gas. Elementals are not gaseous, and a person affected by Windy Escape is gaseous only briefly, which puts it in the realm of GM ruling as to whether that is sufficient to foil a grapple.

Great suggestion! As a GM I'd be inclined to allow it against grapples wholesale just to speed the game, keeping in mind that it's an immediate action to cast 'just' before the attack/grapple reaches you. Another way I'd consider is to make it a 50% miss chance on the grapple (akin to how Blink works), depending how my players feel about it (most of my players would prefer the former as it advantages the PCs).

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
brock, no the other one... wrote:
SKR comments that you can't grapple something you can't hold — a gas. Elementals are not gaseous, and a person affected by Windy Escape is gaseous only briefly, which puts it in the realm of GM ruling as to whether that is sufficient to foil a grapple.
Great suggestion! As a GM I'd be inclined to allow it against grapples wholesale just to speed the game, keeping in mind that it's an immediate action to cast 'just' before the attack/grapple reaches you. Another way I'd consider is to make it a 50% miss chance on the grapple (akin to how Blink works), depending how my players feel about it (most of my players would prefer the former as it advantages the PCs).

I would easily agree that if you avoid all the damage from an attack a grapple/grab attempt fail, but only if you avoid all of it.

Windy escape don't give 100% protection from an attack, so it shouldn't give 100% protection from effects not listed in the spell description.


ElyasRavenwood wrote:
Can the Windy Escape spell be used to get out of a grapple from an Evard's Black Tentacle spell?

Plenty have spoken about avoiding getting grappled. I don't think anyone talked about escaping the grapple.

Despite its name, the spell is only a response to an attack, not a get out of here spell. It cannot escape a grapple. It may be able to cause the maintain a grapple to fail.

/cevah

101 to 150 of 151 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can the Windy Escape spell be used to get out of a grapple from an Evard's Black Tentacle spell? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.