Outmaneuvered

Pin should be:

Pinned: A pinned creature is physically (not magically) held in place against its will. Pinning can be effective against mundane creatures but can be hazardous against magical or extraordinary ones. A pinned creature can use any Extraordinary or Supernatural abilities without penalty. This includes forms of movement that fall into these categories such as flying. These forms of movement are still subject to carrying capacities.

Except where noted above, a pinned creature cannot move and is flat-footed. A pinned creature also takes an additional –4 penalty to its Armor Class. A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check. A pinned creature who attempts to cast a spell or activate a spell like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level) or lose the spell or it's equivalent daily use (if any). Making this concentration check assumes the creature successfully cast the spell including retrieval of any spell components or focus items. Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack.

I don't think grappling or pinning should be a valid strategy against extraordinary opponents. Pinning and grappling should be something you do to a town guard or low level NPC, not a demon or dragon.

Pin should be:

Pinned: A pinned creature is physically (not magically) held in place against its will. Pinning can be effective against mundane creatures but can be hazardous against magical or extraordinary ones. A pinned creature can use any Extraordinary or Supernatural abilities without penalty. This includes forms of movement that fall into these categories such as flying. These forms of movement are still subject to carrying capacities.

Except where noted above, a pinned creature cannot move and is flat-footed. A pinned creature also takes an additional –4 penalty to its Armor Class. A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check. A pinned creature who attempts to cast a spell or activate a spell like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level) or lose the spell or it's equivalent daily use (if any). Making this concentration check assumes the creature successfully cast the spell including retrieval of any spell components or focus items. Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack.

I don't think grappling or pinning should be a valid strategy against extraordinary opponents. Pinning and grappling should be something you do to a town guard or low level NPC, not a demon or dragon.

I think it's easier to just go ahead and throw out grappling. It's already terribly and confusingly designed and my friend here wants to make it only usable on humanoids. That's it, everyone roll Wizards.

Gallard Stormeye wrote:

Thanks for the update/clarification. While you're at it can we get some more information on what a creature can do while grappled or pinned?

Can a grappled creature full attack at all?
Can a grappled creature full attack with a weapon? (say dagger)
Can a grappled creature full attack with natural weapons? (say a dragon with claw/claw/wing/wing/bite)

Can a pinned creature use something like a breath weapon?

1) No

2) No. They can make a CMB check to deal damage with a light or one-handed weapon.
3) No. They can make a CMB check to deal damage with a single natural weapon.
4) Probably.

Can you not full attack with a -2 to hit as long as it is a one handed weapon? In the glossary it states:

Grappled: 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 must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler’s
CMB + spell level, see page 206), or lose the spell. Grappled
creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.

A grappled creature cannot use Stealth to hide from
the creature grappling it, even if a special ability, such as
hide in plain sight, would normally allow it to do so. If
a grappled creature becomes invisible, through a spell or
other ability, it gains a +2 circumstance bonus on its CMD
to avoid being grappled, but receives no other benefit.

Nothing in what you just posted refers to the handedness of weapons. I agree the intent is mostly there but there far too much left completely undefined.

What about dragons? If a dragon is grappled by something can the dragon full attack? It doesn't even have hands. On its turn assuming it wants to attack instead of break the grapple how many attacks does it get:

One claw?
All attacks minus one claw (to represent the hand that would be lost for a humanoid grappling)?
No attacks since it doesn't have any hands?

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 requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you.

I've always read that bolded part to mean you can make a singular attack.

This is the one and only thing about PFRPG that saddened me. Jason and the gang had a perfect opportunity to make combat maneuvers clear, concise, simple, and water-tight. The 3.5e rules were oft-considered to cumbersome and confusing. PF failed to remedy that, sadly. There shouldn't be any of this discussion or debate about these rules... but there has to be, because some parts were written ambiguously.

I'd love a mega-errata "replace the combat maneuvers pages with THIS" type document that's more coherent than what was written.

I've always read that bolded part to mean you can make a singular attack.

I agree but people on the other side of the fence use this:

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 requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you.

To explain how they can full attack while being grappled.

Quote:

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 requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you.

I've always read that bolded part to mean you can make a singular attack.

This hinges on the difference between non-exhaustive lists of EXAMPLES of a principle, and definitive lists of what is allowed/excluded. I hilighted the broader phrase giving context to what you quoted, to show that the section is specifically saying ANYTHING done with one hand only is allowable, and those are just the most common examples, but aren´t an EXHAUSTIVE list. Many other parts of the rules depend on similar distinctions between non-exhaustive lists of examples, and definitive lists (which this section isn´t worded as).

The above section does have a problem, in that I believe it´s clear that it´s under the assumption that the subject corresponds to the ´humanoid with 2 hands´ category (mentioned in the first part of Grapple rules, re: whether or not you take penalty to Grapple checks for not having 2 hands free), and that the limation against actions requiring 2 arms doesn´t/shouldn´t apply to anybody with 3+ arms or non-humanoid form. Potential Errata.

This is the one and only thing about PFRPG that saddened me. Jason and the gang had a perfect opportunity to make combat maneuvers clear, concise, simple, and water-tight. The 3.5e rules were oft-considered to cumbersome and confusing. PF failed to remedy that, sadly. There shouldn't be any of this discussion or debate about these rules... but there has to be, because some parts were written ambiguously.

I'd love a mega-errata "replace the combat maneuvers pages with THIS" type document that's more coherent than what was written.

Yeah I pretty much agree. After reading the revamped combat maneuver stuff it doesn't seem any easier to use, just different.

I think the root of all evil with grapple and other combat a maneuvers (like trip and overrun, etc) is that the designers insist on trying to come up with a system that makes them viable combat tactics through levels 1-20 when they should not be.

All combat maneuvers, including grapple, should be useful only at low levels or with low CR "mundane" creatures and the system used to adjudicate them should be simple enough to reflect this. After level 5 or so you should never want to try to grapple anything as it should be ineffective and it should fall off your plate of combat options.

Thanks for the clarification. It makes sense. I like it. That is all.

Yeah I pretty much agree. After reading the revamped combat maneuver stuff it doesn't seem any easier to use, just different.

I think the root of all evil with grapple and other combat a maneuvers (like trip and overrun, etc) is that the designers insist on trying to come up with a system that makes them viable combat tactics through levels 1-20 when they should not be.

All combat maneuvers, including grapple, should be useful only at low levels or with low CR "mundane" creatures and the system used to adjudicate them should be simple enough to reflect this. After level 5 or so you should never want to try to grapple anything as it should be ineffective and it should fall off your plate of combat options.

I disagree with that entirely. If the combat maneuvers don't see any use beyond level 5, then they shouldn't exist at all. Grappling dragons and wrastlin' frost giants should be the stuff that legends are made of, just like in the real world.

The problem really lies in them being restricted and unclear at the same time. The grapple rules are better than they were in 3.5, but they're still not particularly good, and that's a problem with the system. There was a debate in my group about whether or not a grappling cat could use its rake attacks, for example, since it was only limited to making a grapple action as a standard action to maintain the grapple, and the extra rake attacks would be part of a full attack. This sort of thing is not borne out in the rules, so it's kind of frustrating.

Anguish wrote:

This is the one and only thing about PFRPG that saddened me. Jason and the gang had a perfect opportunity to make combat maneuvers clear, concise, simple, and water-tight. The 3.5e rules were oft-considered to cumbersome and confusing. PF failed to remedy that, sadly. There shouldn't be any of this discussion or debate about these rules... but there has to be, because some parts were written ambiguously.

I'd love a mega-errata "replace the combat maneuvers pages with THIS" type document that's more coherent than what was written.

Yeah I pretty much agree. After reading the revamped combat maneuver stuff it doesn't seem any easier to use, just different.

I think the root of all evil with grapple and other combat a maneuvers (like trip and overrun, etc) is that the designers insist on trying to come up with a system that makes them viable combat tactics through levels 1-20 when they should not be.

All combat maneuvers, including grapple, should be useful only at low levels or with low CR "mundane" creatures and the system used to adjudicate them should be simple enough to reflect this. After level 5 or so you should never want to try to grapple anything as it should be ineffective and it should fall off your plate of combat options.

What would be the point of a game mechanic in a game that goes from 1-20 that is only effective until level 6? IMO combat maneuvers should stay effective through all levels. Otherwise why have them? If anything they should increase in effectiveness as a character levels up.

I disagree with that entirely. If the combat maneuvers don't see any use beyond level 5, then they shouldn't exist at all. Grappling dragons and wrastlin' frost giants should be the stuff that legends are made of, just like in the real world.

Agreed.

Theseus wrestling and slaying the minotaur. The final scene in Predator. Conan's final battle with Dagoth at the end of Conan the Destroyer.

There are plenty of examples, even in modern fiction, of heroes battling terrifying and exotic creatures and coming out ahead with only their bare hands.

Disciple of Sakura wrote:

I disagree with that entirely. If the combat maneuvers don't see any use beyond level 5, then they shouldn't exist at all. Grappling dragons and wrastlin' frost giants should be the stuff that legends are made of, just like in the real world.

Agreed.

Theseus wrestling and slaying the minotaur. The final scene in Predator. Conan's final battle with Dagoth at the end of Conan the Destroyer.

There are plenty of examples, even in modern fiction, of heroes battling terrifying and exotic creatures and coming out ahead with only their bare hands.

Well to me this is reflected in the actual combat. I don't think a frost giant would literally wrestle a dragon. I think they would fight and that fight would be determined by combat within the combat system, not in grappling rules.

Grappling, as the rules attempt to portray, is meant for two humanoids using actual wrestling moves. It doesn't even make sense to have a bear and a lion "grapple" they would just claw and bite. Same thing, I believe, with a minotaur or a dragon or any monster. Grappling is for bar rooms between humanoids, not for monsters in dungeons.

This, to me, is the whole issue with grappling.

All combat maneuvers, including grapple, should be useful only at low levels or with low CR "mundane" creatures and the system used to adjudicate them should be simple enough to reflect this. After level 5 or so you should never want to try to grapple anything as it should be ineffective and it should fall off your plate of combat options.

Sorry, Cibet, I couldn't disagree more.

Animals wrestle all the time. For some, it's a large part of their combat strategy. Wrestling/grappling isn't solely two dudes in tights choking each other.

Warning: Do not click the following if lion on zebra violence offends you.

Example

Lion moves into range, hits with a bite, succeeds on grapple check, etc.

Animals wrestle all the time. For some, it's a large part of their combat strategy. Wrestling/grappling isn't solely two dudes in tights choking each other.

Warning: Do not click the following if lion on zebra violence offends you.

Example

Lion moves into range, hits with a bite, succeeds on grapple check, etc.

That to me is just a lion attacking. Claw, claw, bite. I don't see a grapple. People who don't want to actually kill each other grapple, everything else fights.

Gallard Stormeye wrote:

Animals wrestle all the time. For some, it's a large part of their combat strategy. Wrestling/grappling isn't solely two dudes in tights choking each other.

Warning: Do not click the following if lion on zebra violence offends you.

Example

Lion moves into range, hits with a bite, succeeds on grapple check, etc.

That to me is just a lion attacking. Claw, claw, bite. I don't see a grapple. People who don't want to actually kill each other grapple, everything else fights.

You can claw something without attaching to it.

Having lived with cats all my life, and having had a cat grab me with his forepaws, rake me with his rear paws, and bite me with his teeth... I'd say that's a straight up grapple, since it's extremely difficult to remove my hand safely and it's definitely a form of painful hold.

Gallard Stormeye wrote:

Thanks for the update/clarification. While you're at it can we get some more information on what a creature can do while grappled or pinned?

Can a grappled creature full attack at all?
Can a grappled creature full attack with a weapon? (say dagger)
Can a grappled creature full attack with natural weapons? (say a dragon with claw/claw/wing/wing/bite)

Can a pinned creature use something like a breath weapon?

1) No

2) No. They can make a CMB check to deal damage with a light or one-handed weapon.
3) No. They can make a CMB check to deal damage with a single natural weapon.
4) Probably.

Jason Bulmahn in this post says the grappled can full attack, unless they're retracting that ruling.

Edited 'cuz I got the wrong dev. :P

#1 Killer of 1st level Wizards: Domesticated House Cats. :P

So this isn't grappling then?

Or this?

I hope we get a lot of these columns. Official rules clarifications are always awsome.

The grapple rules are better than they were in 3.5, but they're still not particularly good,

I actually disagree with that, IMHO the 3.5 Grapple rules are at least clear and don't contradict one another. They also don't add in the confusion of winning grappler and losing grappler. Hopefully Paizo will manage to get Grappling right in PF 2e.

Disciple of Sakura wrote:

The grapple rules are better than they were in 3.5, but they're still not particularly good,

I actually disagree with that, IMHO the 3.5 Grapple rules are at least clear and don't contradict one another. They also don't add in the confusion of winning grappler and losing grappler. Hopefully Paizo will manage to get Grappling right in PF 2e.

We shouldn't have to wait an indefinite amount of time for a theoretical and intangible game revision to fix system problems.

The opposition to correcting problems is one thing really bothering me about how Paizo is running Pathfinder.

We shouldn't have to wait an indefinite amount of time for a theoretical and intangible game revision to fix system problems.

The opposition to correcting problems is one thing really bothering me about how Paizo is running Pathfinder.

So when they do answer you, they haven't thought it through. And when they think it through, they're taking too long. Right.

On top of that, you impugn the designers on a regular basis. In your own interest, I suggest you either take a more polite track to getting what you want, or stop caring entirely.

The opposition to correcting problems is one thing really bothering me about how Paizo is running Pathfinder.

Now, I'm with you on fixing confusing mechanics, but I would much rather have Paizo continue to place more content that completes their world over something that can be addressed by a GM as a house rule.

Should it get fixed/clarified? Yes

Should Paizo make priority to edit all instances of their rules in every piece of their work including outdated books to coincide with what they stated will be the rule from here on out?

Absolutely not.

Cartigan wrote:

We shouldn't have to wait an indefinite amount of time for a theoretical and intangible game revision to fix system problems.

The opposition to correcting problems is one thing really bothering me about how Paizo is running Pathfinder.

So when they do answer you, they haven't thought it through. And when they think it through, they're taking too long.

I thought you guys got used to the fact that Cartigan is never happy :)

The opposition to correcting problems is one thing really bothering me about how Paizo is running Pathfinder.

Agreed.

The opposition to even ACKNOWLEDGING problems frustrates me. Too often the solution is "Rule 0". The GM has enough things to do, without learning game design. Most GMs don't have nearly the breadth of system understanding to make balanced rules. And Rule 0 simply encourages them to make [bad] decisions on the fly instead of learning the actual rules.

I'd like to see a "voting" system setup where the community can identify issues they'd most like to see addressed. Paizo should present a weekly/monthly poll with contentious issues. For each issue, a thread should exist where people can discuss exactly what about the issue that interests/confuses them.

We already had an answer to Triplock, and I don't feel another was needed nor desired.

With respect to Grapple, the clarification is nice, but I suspect there are a lot more questions related to grapple that the community would like addressed.

I gotta ask, to what game company are you comparing Paizo when you say that they are sluggish in addressing or even acknowledging problems?

I'm frequently on these boards and this is the first I've heard of the grapple thing. You're not going to have a well-considered erratum 24 hours later. Furthermore, I've not had a problem with it in play; although I do agree the wording is poor, it never even came to my attention because I understood the intent.

The expectation seems to be that there's some kind of firewatch team ready to scramble on every vague clause in the book, and they should get it right instantly, the first time. I wouldn't want to GM for people who think this is a problem, it seems like they would be the worst kind of gainsayers.

Relax dudes. It's a rule, and the intent isn't exactly obscure.

Cartigan wrote:

We shouldn't have to wait an indefinite amount of time for a theoretical and intangible game revision to fix system problems.

The opposition to correcting problems is one thing really bothering me about how Paizo is running Pathfinder.

So when they do answer you, they haven't thought it through.And when they think it through, they're taking too long. Right.

Answering a question about the rules that directly contradicts the rules is entirely different from a statement that's entire purpose is to update and change the rules.

On top of that, you impugn the designers on a regular basis.

Yeah, no one EVER rode WotC's ass. And I imagine the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia filter out complaints against TSR, Gygax, Arneson, and the rest.

The expectation seems to be that there's some kind of firewatch team ready to scramble on every vague clause in the book, and they should get it right instantly, the first time. I wouldn't want to GM for people who think this is a problem, it seems like they would be the worst kind of gainsayers.

Wait wait wait. Common Sense? In this thread? Tar and feather I say!

Cartigan wrote:

The opposition to correcting problems is one thing really bothering me about how Paizo is running Pathfinder.

Now, I'm with you on fixing confusing mechanics, but I would much rather have Paizo continue to place more content that completes their world over something that can be addressed by a GM as a house rule.

Like Polymorph in 3.5?

EVERY issue can be addressed and "fixed" by a GM as a house rule. That doesn't mean it isn't an issue that needs to be fixed at the top. Especially given the existence of things like the Living systems or Pathfinder Society.

Yeah, no one EVER rode WotC's ass. And I imagine the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia filter out complaints against TSR, Gygax, Arneson, and the rest.

Fair enough. I'm just calling it like I see it.

I, for one, would rather see the whole grapple thing cleaned up even if it takes time. It is a disappointment, as one of the main selling points of the 3.5 upgrade.

I hope that the Beginner Box scrapped this language, and I hope it was tested on virgin players. Institutional knowledge is what leads to these vague clauses. A roomful of people who know the rules well are the single least effective candidates for writing instructions.

EDIT: I want to add. I'd really prefer the slow approach rather than this relentless patching. Patching is sloppy. When an issue arises, I think it should be dealt with methodically, and that takes time.

I gotta ask, to what game company are you comparing Paizo when you say that they are sluggish in addressing or even acknowledging problems?

Who said they were sluggish? I said they have an existent, and vocally affirmative, opposition to putting out publicized errata to change the rules for clarification or to just fix wrong ones.

EVERY issue can be addressed and "fixed" by a GM as a house rule. That doesn't mean it isn't an issue that needs to be fixed at the top. Especially given the existence of things like the Living systems or Pathfinder Society.

You also seem to forget that this blog statement was made for those issues you are talking about. You complain that Grappling/Pinning is convoluted even after they state that this is the way it is? (that means the rules about grappling/pinning in all published work previous this is no longer valid to your arguments)

Cartigan wrote:

EVERY issue can be addressed and "fixed" by a GM as a house rule. That doesn't mean it isn't an issue that needs to be fixed at the top. Especially given the existence of things like the Living systems or Pathfinder Society.

Uh no. This blog is not a system of errata. It is a system of communication with the community to introduce either new mechanics or answer questions (and possibly introduce new mechanics as answers to question). And the fact in answering a question they contradicted the rules as written only serves to underline my point. Were this an errata, there would be a statement that "this is what the rules" say and "we are changing it to that instead." The "FAQ" system is the closest to errata they have but it still isn't errata nor is it particularly at-hand for average people looking for a solution to an issue.

You complain that Grappling/Pinning is convoluted even after they state that this is the way it is?

No, I said pinning was terrible after they rechecked their statement, realized it was a rules contradiction, and then stated that "yes, that's the way it is now."

You complain that Grappling/Pinning is convoluted even after they state that this is the way it is?

Well, to be fair... it is pretty convoluted.

The expectation seems to be that there's some kind of firewatch team ready to scramble on every vague clause in the book, and they should get it right instantly, the first time. I wouldn't want to GM for people who think this is a problem, it seems like they would be the worst kind of gainsayers.

I don't expect a fire team, but I do expect an honest dialogue where mistakes are admitted. It is not uncommon for the designers to defend their wording when it is not only ambiguous, but also clearly incorrect.

And then we have FAQ's which contradict RAW, with no accompanied errata. And the FAQ isn't revised to conform to RAW. How in the world does that work? It's just more confusing.

*The "FAQ" system is the closest to errata they have but it still isn't errata nor is it particularly at-hand for average people looking for a solution to an issue.
*But outside that, the use of Pinning is terrible after this ruling.

But it is a minor issue :)

Cartigan wrote:

*The "FAQ" system is the closest to errata they have but it still isn't errata nor is it particularly at-hand for average people looking for a solution to an issue.
*But outside that, the use of Pinning is terrible after this ruling.

But it is a minor issue :)

Pinning as it is written now has horrible disadvantages, I agree, but it still has some viability, albeit very little.

It's minor because it's so terrible and confusing that no one uses it, so the questions never come up. No of the players in my group ever grapple -- the DM throws monsters that do occasionally, but they almost always have Grab, and then just release the grapple immediately after dealing the damage.

If the Grapple rules were a) clear, and/or b) effective, more people would use them.

Dale Wessel wrote:

wrote: But it is a minor issue :)

Pinning as it is written now has horrible disadvantages, I agree, but it still has some viability, albeit very little.

It's minor because it's so terrible and confusing that no one uses it, so the questions never come up. No of the players in my group ever grapple -- the DM throws monsters that do occasionally, but they almost always have Grab, and then just release the grapple immediately after dealing the damage.

If the Grapple rules were a) clear, and/or b) effective, more people would use them. It looks like the designer's intent is to make Grapple so horrible, that it doesn't even matter how it works -- the only people you grapple are the ones you so severely outclass that it is irrelevent.

I use grapple nigh constantly, because one of my PCs I GM for is a grapple monkey.

This is a minor issue, not because of the obscurity of the rule, but rather because the intent is clear*. I do not need a rulebook top tell me that "pinning" someone in a grapple is making it so that they cannot attack you. That is what the word means.

If it turns out that this was not the intent — then I'm with the nerdragers about the whole "backpedaling rule designer" thing. But I have faith that the intention of the "pin" option is to make it so that the enemy cannot attack.

*The wording is pretty badly ambiguous, though.

This is a minor issue, not because of the obscurity of the rule, but rather because the intent is clear. I do not need a rulebook top tell me that "pinning" someone in a grapple is making it so that they cannot attack you. That is what the word means.

Words mean lots of things. Unless those words are defined in game terms they mean nothing in game terms. Just like the wholly ambiguous verb "using" in the Defending weapon enhancement.

Evil Lincoln wrote:

This is a minor issue, not because of the obscurity of the rule, but rather because the intent is clear. I do not need a rulebook top tell me that "pinning" someone in a grapple is making it so that they cannot attack you. That is what the word means.

Words mean lots of things. Unless those words are defined in game terms they mean nothing in game terms. Just like the wholly ambiguous verb "using" in the Defending weapon enhancement.

Partial agreement. I was just adding an "*" to my post to that effect.

Basically: minor issue because I know what "pinning" means. Yes the wording needs to be fixed. No, it's not that big a deal.

It's minor because it's so terrible and confusing that no one uses it, so the questions never come up. No of the players in my group ever grapple -- the DM throws monsters that do occasionally, but they almost always have Grab, and then just release the grapple immediately after dealing the damage.

If the Grapple rules were a) clear, and/or b) effective, more people would use them.

Im sure I'll get roasted for this, but: If this is a minor issue, no one really uses it since its broken now anyway, and that the rules are still confusing for people, why the fuss?

What happened when you realized that your remote control was broken? You kept watching TV; only difference was you had to press the buttons on it to change channels. You are still able to do the things that you want to with the TV, just not as easily.

Yea, its ruling is weird. Yes it needs to be fixed. Will this stop me from using grapple in my games? No. Will it completely ruin the fun for those that are into hardcore Society play? I sure as hell hope not.

My point: Rules sometimes get in the way of people having fun with the game. Take what you believe is right, and play it that way! And if you want, keep asking for a better written rule! Just don't let something like this sour your day. It's pointless.

D&D/d20/Pathfinder is really a rules based game. Sure, you can play it however you want, changes whatever you want. But why, and how, does that fact repeatedly get in the way of trying to get rules clarifications and fixes from Paizo on this forum?

Adam Ormond wrote:

It's minor because it's so terrible and confusing that no one uses it, so the questions never come up. No of the players in my group ever grapple -- the DM throws monsters that do occasionally, but they almost always have Grab, and then just release the grapple immediately after dealing the damage.

If the Grapple rules were a) clear, and/or b) effective, more people would use them.

Im sure I'll get roasted for this, but: If this is a minor issue, no one really uses it since its broken now anyway, and that the rules are still confusing for people, why the fuss?

What happened when you realized that your remote control was broken? You kept watching TV; only difference was you had to press the buttons on it to change channels. You are still able to do the things that you want to with the TV, just not as easily.

Yea, its ruling is weird. Yes it needs to be fixed. Will this stop me from using grapple in my games? No. Will it completely ruin the fun for those that are into hardcore Society play? I sure as hell hope not.

My point: Rules sometimes get in the way of people having fun with the game. Take what you believe is right, and play it that way! And if you want, keep asking for a better written rule! Just don't let something like this sour your day. It's pointless.

Other than the minor clarification with escape artist (that honestly was the way most groups I've seen were using it anyway) what has changed?

D&D/d20/Pathfinder is really a rules based game. Sure, you can play it however you want, changes whatever you want. But why, and how, does that fact repeatedly get in the way of trying to get rules clarifications and fixes from Paizo on this forum?

You seem to have not read the Getting Started portion of the Core Rule Book

The Most Important Rule...
...Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs

That is why it keeps being brought up :P

Cartigan wrote:

D&D/d20/Pathfinder is really a rules based game. Sure, you can play it however you want, changes whatever you want. But why, and how, does that fact repeatedly get in the way of trying to get rules clarifications and fixes from Paizo on this forum?

You seem to have not read the Getting Started portion of the Core Rule Book

Core wrote:

The Most Important Rule...
...Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs

That is why it keeps being brought up :P

Emphasis mine. Note, you CAN change them. Not, you HAVE to change them.

"The Most Important Rule" is not an appropriate defense of poorly written rules, in my opinion. That rule is there to cover things like "there are no XXX in my game". Not "I don't understand rule XXX, so here's what I think should happen after no analysis or testing", or "wow, XXX seems better than YYY, so XXX now works like ZZZ". And then, because it's the "GM's game", the players are relegated to "mother may I?"

In my opinion, RPGs should be COLLABORATIONS, not dictatorships. If it's to be a dictatorship, I want clear rules.

Emphasis mine. Note, you CAN change them. Not, you HAVE to change them.

Did you miss the fact that it was a joke?

Adam Ormond wrote:

Emphasis mine. Note, you CAN change them. Not, you HAVE to change them.

Did you miss the fact that it was a joke?

Clearly. :P is not ;D

And lots of people do appear to believe Rule 0 is an appropriate (and, sometimes, only) solution to bad/confusing rules.