Grappling isn't a "golden hammer" that is always 100% effective, or even effective at all, and it shouldn't be. Sure, there's probably a better way to do each of the things listed above, but if you're even okay at grappling, all of those are options for you.Noted.
Noooooooted.
Considering that you seem to have only responded to the part of my post where I politely conceded that grappling wasn't super amazing at everything, I think my case is still valid. For the record, I tried.
Also, if you're a badass level 9 warrior, grappling a wimpy CR 4 bear is cake to you. Just don't try and hug the horrorterrors.
But being grappled doesnt stop you from threatening, right? So a grappled target can still help flank a foe, even his grappler?
But being grappled doesnt stop you from threatening, right? So a grappled target can still help flank a foe, even his grappler?
That is correct.
-Matt
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Wow. These blogs TOTALLY glossed over some oft asked questions. I have NEVER heard those questions asked on the forums, but have come across a number of other questions OVER AND OVER again.
Questions like:
"Can you pin someone in one round using Greater Grapple and two move actions, or do you still have to do it over the course of two rounds since you can seemingly only pin while making a check to maintain (you only need to maintain once per round)?"
OR
"Which section of the rules do we use for casting in a grapple and/or pin? There are contradictory rules throughout the text. Which ones are the intended rules?"
OR
"Can a tentacle monster (such as a kraken) really attack a target once, grapple them for free with grab, deal constriction damage, release as a them as a free action, and then repeat the same attack routine against the same (or different) target with the remaining 9 tentacles for massive damage output all in a single round?"
OR
"Can a monster (such as a giant octopus) use it's many tentacle attacks and grab ability to grapple multiple targets at once since grappling does absolutely nothing to discontinue a full attack when using the Grab ability? Though it can only maintain one grapple in the next round (as it only has one standard action), this still might be useful for limiting an entire party's actions on their turns. Is it possible for such a creature to maintain two grapples a round if it has Greater Grapple?"
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The Grab ability specifically allows you to ignore the limit on grappling and grapple multiple opponents (and generally act normally aside from the fact that one of your natural attacks is busy grappling a single foe). You have to take a -20 to your grapple checks if you want to do it, though.
That only applies if the Giant Octopus is trying to avoid gaining the grappled condition itself during the full attack action. If it doesn't mind gaining the grappled condition, then it doesn't need to take the -20. And simply "gaining the grappled condition" doesn't end its full attack that first round, RIGHT PAIZO?
(prodding them into a response hopefully)
... Also there was this interactive where the author gave all his bad guys potions of it (yes i know potions of FoM aren't legal, but he did not care) in the final version because a player grappled the BBEG into submission in his playtest.
It couldn't have been a potion per se, but quite easily could have been a one-use Wondrous Item (elixer of free moves, perhaps) with the same cost as a potion would have been. The cost is the same - 50gp x caster level x spell level. In the case of freedom of movement each potion would typically cost 1,400gp.
The Grab ability specifically allows you to ignore the limit on grappling and grapple multiple opponents (and generally act normally aside from the fact that one of your natural attacks is busy grappling a single foe). You have to take a -20 to your grapple checks if you want to do it, though.That only applies if the Giant Octopus is trying to avoid gaining the grappled condition itself during the full attack action. If it doesn't mind gaining the grappled condition, then it doesn't need to take the -20. And simply "gaining the grappled condition" doesn't end its full attack that first round, ...
I've always interpreted it that way, but you have to pay attention to the grappling limbs. For example, just two games ago I used a kraken with Improved Rapidstrike for all its 2 tentacles and 6 arms, giving it a grand total of 24 attacks - but only if it didn't grapple with one of the arms. Once it latched on with an arm (the way I ran it), it lost the benefit of the additional attacks for that arm.
Since kraken are intelligent, it smacked each character around a bit and then went for the grab on its second-to-last attack (giving it one more attack in case it missed the grab the first time).
Granted, Pathfinder (as far as I know) does not have anything like the Rapidstrike or Improved Rapidstrike feats, so currently creatures with multiple natural attacks have nothing to lose.
That's how I run it, anyways.
A creature like the kraken that has grab should full attack each round and take the free grapple check that they get with the successful attack. This way they keep the opponent grappled (through grab) but get to full attack each round.
Question: For clarification -- a creature with rake would select the grapple option, deal its damage with the grapple and then get however many extra attacks (that are normal attacks) based on its rake ability correct?
Example: So a Behir has grappled a character. On his turn he uses the grapple option, succeeds and does his bite damage and constrict damage (since he succeeded on the grapple check) -- then he gets six attacks (that are claws) as per his rake ability. If the Behir wanted to he could choose to swallow whole instead of raking.
Second Question: How does rake interact with grab -- if the above Behir manages to grab in the first turn can he also rake in that turn, or does he have to wait until the next turn?
Final thought: A Behir with Greater Grapple would be really nasty -- he could grapple as a move action, get all his rakes in (as well as constict) and then grapple as a standard action getting all his rakes in again (as well as constrict) -- meaning he would get 16 damage rolls in one round (I think).
What's important here is that grappling just got nerfed again.
Personally, I wouldn't say grapple "just" got nerfed, considering the blog post agrees with the interpretation I've used for grappling in Pathfinder since the Beta playtest came out. The wording seemed pretty clear to me all along -- YMMV.
I also agree with those who are suggesting that there are other, more controversial aspects of grapple that are worth addressing.
A creature like the kraken that has grab should full attack each round and take the free grapple check that they get with the successful attack. This way they keep the opponent grappled (through grab) but get to full attack each round.
Question: For clarification -- a creature with rake would select the grapple option, deal its damage with the grapple and then get however many extra attacks (that are normal attacks) based on its rake ability correct?
Example: So a Behir has grappled a character. On his turn he uses the grapple option, succeeds and does his bite damage and constrict damage (since he succeeded on the grapple check) -- then he gets six attacks (that are claws) as per his rake ability. If the Behir wanted to he could choose to swallow whole instead of raking.
Second Question: How does rake interact with grab -- if the above Behir manages to grab in the first turn can he also rake in that turn, or does he have to wait until the next turn?
Final thought: A Behir with Greater Grapple would be really nasty -- he could grapple as a move action, get all his rakes in (as well as constict) and then grapple as a standard action getting all his rakes in again (as well as constrict) -- meaning he would get 16 damage rolls in one round (I think).
As you can see, rake begins on the second round after you have maintained the hold. Unlike constrict which works whenever you make ANY successful grapple check, you MUST use the standard grapple options (such as deal damage in a grapple, move the grapple, etc.) in order to benefit from your bonus rake attacks.
What's important here is that grappling just got nerfed again.Personally, I wouldn't say grapple "just" got nerfed, considering the blog post agrees with the interpretation I've used for grappling in Pathfinder since the Beta playtest came out. The wording seemed pretty clear to me all along -- YMMV.
I also agree with those who are suggesting that there are other, more controversial aspects of grapple that are worth addressing.
I agree. Grappling didn't get nerfed due to this blog, it's worked this way throughout all of Pathfinder. In fact, statements like the above are the only thing that lets me know that this underwhelming blog did any good at all.
The people who are complaining about full attack while grappled being a nerf REEK of insincerity IMHO...
Their complaints have that ´been stewing for a long time´ smell, rather than sincere shock at a change, aka nerf.
...Though I do have to say that their claims that ´now´ ;-) Grapple MONSTERS are utterly weak is hilarious...
And makes me want to introduce them to a Kraken that I know ;-)
Anyhow, everybody else keeps on bringing up more really confusing aspects of Grapple which I would hope could be answered in this Rules Blog format, or the FAQ/Errata... Most all of them have been mentioned before, if not in the previous Grappe Blog´s own comments, so I´m still baffled why they were passed over in lieu of re-iterating that you can Full Attack while Grappled, a topic which I´ve never seen much confusion over (amongst every other player I know, as well as forum discussion here, which may CRITICIZE that aspect but nobody seems to not be aware that is how it works).
Ravingdork brings up the option for a Constrict+Grab Monster to ´focus fire´ on one target, dealing double damage (normal+constrict) against them... Although that may be very powerful, it´s not any more damage than they could do vs. their maximum number of targets, and doesn´t ´advance´ the Grapple/Pin pacing at all, so I would guess that it´s ´allowed´... Certainly nothing in the current RAW disallows that... An Errata to Constrict to apply 1/round would easily fix that if the RAI was different than the current RAW. Constrict should already be factored into the the damage output: CR calculation for a Monster, so using the tactic the monster is built around shouldn´t really be problematic.
Likewise, there are different questions floating around hinging upon whether or not you CAN ´maintain´ a Grapple multiple times per round, and/or on the same round you initiated a Grapple (beyond that you MUST do so 1/round for the Grapple to continue). That also allows some potentially more powerful tactics, but I think it falls into ´if you have the actions and nothing says you can´t, you can do it´. An obvious use of 2xMaintains via Greater Grapple would be Maintaining a Grapple using the Move option, moving the target twice as far (into dangerous situation, etc). Some other effective tactics open up with special cases, e.g. Barbarian who gets a free Bite in addition to each Grapple Maintain, meaning the Bite is also doubled up when you can take 2 Grapples/Round... I don´t see any problem there, and again the RAW would need to be Errata´d for another function to be proscribed.
I think pretty much every Grab monster I´ve seen DOESN´T have Improved Grapple, much less Greater Grapple, which pretty clearly seems to be a Paizo design guideline, that Grab is good enough as-is, and such Monsters aren´t to be given those Feats. Maybe some day they will make such a monster, though I don´t even think it will make such a difference (besides increasing the CMB/CMD further).
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I have a question about the ´clarification´ of Bullrush.
In the case of a bull rush, if you do not move into the square your foe occupied, and you move that creature more than 5 feet, you cannot reposition this line based on the opponent's new location. The bull rush continues to follow the original line. But if you do move into a new space as part of the maneuver and then continue to move your foe, you can reposition the line of movement each time you change the location of your space, granting you more options when it comes to your foe's final positioning.
...You can move with the target if you wish but you must have the available movement to do so....
The Rules Blog is saying the ´pushing target straight away from you´ line may be re-orientated to account for your new position if you choose to move into the opponent´s square. But by definition, since you would also be moving in the same line, how could that possibly allow for a new ´orientation´ of the line from the new position? The only possibility I see is if some NON STANDARD (special ability) Bullrush allows you to (as part of the Bullrush itself) move laterally instead of into the opponent´s square (which would be in-line with the line between your original location and the target´s original location). Barring such an option, which I don´t think currently exists, the current ´clarification´ of being able to ´re-orientate´ the line based on new position doesn´t actually seem to do anything different than if the requirement were simply ´straight line from your original position ´thru the target´s original position´.
...Or am I just missing something very big? (possibly a Bullrush option allowing lateral movement)
It seems like the only way the ´clarification´ of re-orientating the straight line COULD be useful was if INSTEAD of being forced to use center point to center point to determine the line, you could CHOOSE any point or corner of both yourself and/or the target, which would allow more of a variety of vectors. But the clarification specifically rules that out. ...??? I would note that Reach Weapons normally allow choosing which corner your attack is coming from (also for multi-square Large+ creatures), but this clarification would seem to over-rule that with the ´center to center´ part.
The Rules Blog is saying the ´pushing target straight away from you´ line may be re-positioned to account for your new position if you choose to move into the opponent´s square. But by definition, since you would also be moving in the same line, how could that possibly allow for a new ´orientation´ of the line from the new position? The only possibility I see is if some NON STANDARD Bullrush allows you to (as part of the Bullrush itself) move laterally instead of into the opponent´s square (which would be in-line with the line between your original location and the target´s original location). Barring such an option, which I don´t think currently exists, the current ´clarification´ of being able to ´re-orientate´ the line based on new position doesn´t actually seem to do anything different than if the requirement were simply ´straight line from your original position ´thru the target´s original position´.
...Or am I just missing something very big? (possibly a Bullrush option allowing lateral movement)
This is exactly what I was thinking when I read the "clarification" (which only serves to confuse things further I might add).
Not to mention that I don't think the fact that wrestling down a dire bear or a tentacle beast being ineffective is a good argument against grappling being valid.
People who try to wrestle bears deserve what they get.
Eh.. well.. that should be a typical hero thing. Not level 1, but not level 20 too.
People who try to wrestle bears deserve what they get.Eh.. well.. that should be a typical hero thing. Not level 1, but not level 20 too.
Certainly WELL before even 10th level, a typical hero should be able to take a couple hits from a Dire Bear´s Full Attack without sweating it. They´re heroic, after all. Combat Expertise or vanilla Fighting Defensively can further help your AC if you worry about a Full Attack before achieving the Pin (if you haven´t taken Greater Grapple). A Dire Bear is CR7 and at is meant to be more of a challenge the lower the character level is... Your own character level and relative strengths affecting whether or not Grappling it is a good idea or not doesn´t seem so far out of the scope of what CR is in fact meant to measure.
If in fact, killing the bear accomplishes your goals just as much as Grappling then Pinning it, and you figure that you have a good chance of killing it in one round, or a better chance of doing that in 2 rounds than Grappling and Pinning it in the same time, you SHOULD probably just Full Attack. That doesn´t mean Grapple is useless in my games... it just means Grappling isn´t meant to make Full Attacks obsolete at the job of killing things. Surprise, surprise.
I see.
|
The Rules Blog is saying the ´pushing target straight away from you´ line may be re-orientated to account for your new position if you choose to move into the opponent´s square. But by definition, since you would also be moving in the same line, how could that possibly allow for a new ´orientation´ of the line from the new position?
You need to get out a battle grid and try it out to wrap your head around this one. It basically ties into the whole 'draw a line between the middle of your square and the middle of their square' when you first charge at the other guy bit. Since your characters aren't locked down to 'grid physics' they can move in a straight line without moving directly up-down / left-right / diagonal on the battle grid, so the line of squares they follow in their 'straight line' can be all wonky on the grid (like the 30ft line diagrams on page 215). That means, in terms of actual squares, your character can appear to swing round the guy he's bull rushing a bit (because miniatures on the grid have to occupy squares) even though, in game, you're following a 'straight line'.
As an example, look at the 30ft line diagram second from the right on page 215 of the Core book. If you happen to charge a guy at that angle you bull rush him from the red dot to the nearest grey square. What the blog seems to be saying is that if you follow up (so you're now in the red dot space) you can either keep pushing the guy back along the line diagram, or, since you and he are now aligned one above the other, shove him directly 'up' the grid (not a euphamism! ;) ). So, after shoving him three spaces he could end up on the space two up and one right from the red dot (as per the line) or three up from the red dot (because you took the option to re-align as you followed up).
As for the usefulness of grappling...
It hits CMD instead of AC (so ignores that troublesome full plate the other guy is wearing) and is the only Combat Maneuver which, in its basic form, actually inflicts damage. I guess there was a good reason those old fight manuals from back in the days of full plate and swords spent so much time on grappling techniques... ;)
OK, thanks for that breakdown. The Blog itself kind of put me in a grid mind-set, and wasn´t quite as clear in describing the context where this would apply. I guess combat map art orders aren´t that viable to do on the fly for things like this :-)
As I understand it, the re-orientation clause effectively DOESN´T apply to Bullrushes executed from adjacent squares between Medium and smaller opponents (and certain other size/position combinations), because those always DO conform to 90 or 45 degree center-center lines. But with differently sized opponents and/or Reach coming into play, the center-to-center line CAN be other than 90 or 45 degrees, thus bringing ´wiggle room´ (on the grid) into play.
For Charges, which (normally) must follow a single line from start to finish (essentially independent of the Bullrush), this can result in the Charge Bullrush moving the target several squares AND THEN TO THE SIDE of the continuing Charge movement. It seem like it can also result in the wierd situation where you can´t Bullrush them in the direction of the Charge line (possibly even from the very first square), if the ´instantaneous´ center-to-center line is divergent from that line. I don´t know if that was the intent here.
But I think I understand it alot better know :-)
Maybe you want to take down that bbeg orc barbarian wielding the axe of a hill giant and make him resort to doing 1d4 + str in unarmed damage and suffering a aoo from every mook in your party .
He would only suffer an AoO from the person he attacks unarmed - but apart form that - good point :)
Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
Hm, I didn't know that you could attack others while being grappled. This raises an intresting question, do you still continue to threaten the surrounding squares while you are grappled? For the purposes of flanking. The rules state that you cannot make attacks of opportunity, but then again, you can attack from grapple.
Hm, I didn't know that you could attack others while being grappled. This raises an intresting question, do you still continue to threaten the surrounding squares while you are grappled? For the purposes of flanking. The rules state that you cannot make attacks of opportunity, but then again, you can attack from grapple.
I think someonehas already posted this upthread, but if you threaten a square, you can flank. So yes.
it is very difficult to cast Dimension Door, or any spell while grappled.
So even if it is just a V, or swift, or immediate, it still requires a Conc check of an enourmous DC.
it is very difficult to cast Dimension Door, or any spell while grappled.
So even if it is just a V, or swift, or immediate, it still requires a Conc check of an enourmous DC.
An impactically high DC. Even spellcasters who are built to be able to beat it will fail more often than not.
|
|
This is how I think a charge + bull rush works, based on the blog stuff...
Fig 1
Fig 2
Fig 3
Fig 4
Fig 5
Fig 6
Fig 7
Fig 8
... There are a lot more potential positions for our little yellow attacker in the last figure, because if at any time he wants to not follow the defender, and just let the guy keep flying straight back on whatever line he's now on, then he can do that.
Essentially, it seems to be that the bull rush follows the exact same line as the initial charge (which makes sense if you think about it), but that if you follow the guy you can choose to 'snap to the grid' at any point and start following the relevant grid directions instead - which, in effect, represents you 'steering' the guy a little bit.
As for counting as flanking when grappled... You can't make AoO when grappled, so you don't threaten (threatening being a part of the AoO rules in the first place), so you don't count as flanking. In game terms, if you can't make AoO then the other guy doesn't have to go out of his way to keep an eye on you - he could choose the stand there on one leg singing 'Hit me, please hit me!' and he wouldn't provoke an AoO from you - because you can't make AoO when grappled... so you're not threatening AoO, even though you can go out of your way to try to hit him when it happens to be your own turn. Can't AoO = not threatening = not flanking.
Can't AoO = not threatening = not flanking.
...after having re-read the combat section on flanking (and on size) I believe that you're right :)
Also: very nice diagrams!
Checking the rules, Charge itself doesn´t actually have a requirement that you travel in a straight line per se*, it just requires moving directly towards the target**, which of course you are in fact doing when you are following the Bull-Rush trajectory... So my concern there doesn´t apply.
* Only Ride-By Attack references a straight line for Charge, so apparently that Feat wouldn´t be compatable with ´adjusted trajectory´ Bullrush Charges, or you would have to ´accomodate´/ignore the straight-line bit to be appropriate, possibly applying to the LAST straight line you travelled in?
** Which results in a straight line as long as they aren´t moving... In fact, if the target takes a Readied action to move during your Charge, I don´t see why you can´t adjust your Charge line to match without breaking the Charge.
But I´m not sure if all your diagrams conform to Bullrush as described in the Blog Post...
Mostly because you seem to be depicting two Medium characters where the Bullrush is occuring at normal Reach (adjacent squares). So shouldn´t any center-to-center line be either 90° or 45°, thus the resulting Bullrush lines would be constrained to a straight line of those orientations? So in your depicted case, wouldn´t Bullrush lines that continue the original straight Charge line (which isn´t 90° or 45°) NOT be valid center-to-center Bullrush lines? Cases with Reach and/or larger differential Creature size allow more center-line angle combinations, and would likely be able to continue the Charge line you are using, but it seems problematic in the Medium vs Medium creature non-Reach scenario you seem to have.
Although I was immediately hesitant, I later felt that this ´new´ approach had it´s good points and any restrictions would tend to be flavorful (i.e. if you want to Bullrush a larger target in-line with your Charge line, you need to aim more specifically for it´s center point rather than just any square). ...But finally I just decided that it brings up too many wierd cases, and the potential hassles of arbitrating square-by-square instantaneous Charge orientation just doesn´t improve the game.
...Leaving me preferring how I previously have always seen it played: That any trajectory that moves the target further away from the Bullrusher´s square (note: some adjacent squares of the target may be the same distance from the Bullrusher, so would be illegal) and passes thru both the Bullrusher´s Center point and the target´s space at ANY point is a valid one (which allows semi-´lateral´ Bullrushes without depending on ´wiggle room´ between the trajectory and the grid), but the Bullrush sticks to that straight line no matter what irrespective if the Bullrusher follows. (this also seems to match the actual economy better, for non-Charge cases where if the Bullrusher is following, they are using a separate Move Action apart from and after the actual Bullrush action... It seems hard to justify these separate, sequential actions if the Bullrusher is in fact continuing to ´modify´ their Bullrush action after the subsequent Move action has started)
Certainly exploring the interaction of these abilities would fit in whenever Charge itself receives Errata/FAQ attention.
|
|
But I´m not sure if all your diagrams conform to Bullrush as described in the Blog Post...
Mostly because you seem to be depicting two Medium characters where the Bullrush is occuring at normal Reach (adjacent squares). So shouldn´t any center-to-center line be either 90° or 45°, thus the resulting Bullrush lines would be constrained to a straight line of those orientations?
Two medium creatures, yes.
I think what you're doing is taking the full round action of a charge which delivers a bull rush as two seperate and distinct actions - the charge to move, and the bull rush following that. That's how you'd do it if the character used a move action to close with the target then a standard action to bull rush the target, sure, but to my mind the charge with bull rush is one single full round action. In that context, the blog appears (to me) to make more sense - you draw the line of charge / bull rush between the centres of the two characters' spaces at the start of the declared full round action, then follow that line throughout (with the new, blog-added, option of 'steering' a little if you follow-up the bull rushed opponent).
Put another way, I don't see why a character charging on a straight-line course at a foe should suddenly be forced to snap to the 'grid physics' of the situation if he tries to bull rush the guy. Take away the grid (or even just rotate the grid a little) and that approach makes no logical in-game sense.
Note that the standard bull rush text (page 199 of the Core book) states that '... a bull rush attempts to push an opponent straight back without doing any harm...' (emphasis mine), the blog-added 'wiggle room' is new, but otherwise 'straight back' to me must mean on the same line as you charged in the first place.
Checking the rules, Charge itself doesn´t actually have a requirement that you travel in a straight line per se*, it just requires moving directly towards the target...
You need a direct, clear, path to the target, and if any line from your starting space to the end space of the charge passes through something that would prevent charging you can't do it. Again, if you actually try this on the grid, the only way you can comform to all the restrictions is if your character travels in a straight line. Or, to put it another way, the most direct route anywhere is a straight line... and charge says you must take the most direct route.
|
Some of us *At least me* are surprised about the full attack... Why do you say? Because of this:
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 always read an attack as it is written, in singular form, in other words 1 attack. Obviously I was wrong, but you should be able to see why I thought that.
I think what you're doing is taking the full round action of a charge which delivers a bull rush as two seperate and distinct actions - the charge to move, and the bull rush following that. That's how you'd do it if the character used a move action to close with the target then a standard action to bull rush the target, sure, but to my mind the charge with bull rush is one single full round action. In that context, the blog appears (to me) to make more sense - you draw the line of charge / bull rush between the centres of the two characters' spaces at the start of the declared full round action, then follow that line throughout (with the new, blog-added, option of 'steering' a little if you follow-up the bull rushed opponent).
I agree that would be an adequate clarification of the clarification.
As is, the blog says ¨When one of these maneuvers tells you to move a foe forward or backward in a straight line, start by placing a point in the middle of your space and make a line to the center of your target's space.¨, which would seemingly read that the center-lines are measured from the point the actual maneuver starts inflicting the Bullrush/Drag movement on the target (and subsequent squares if you follow the target´s movement).Put another way, I don't see why a character charging on a straight-line course at a foe should suddenly be forced to snap to the 'grid physics' of the situation if he tries to bull rush the guy. Take away the grid (or even just rotate the grid a little) and that approach makes no logical in-game sense.
I agree, and a clarification like you suggested, allowing Charge lines to be used as Bullrush lines, would ameliorate this issue completely.
(even if being able to re-adjust Charge lines square-by-square is a bit over-complicated in the middle of combat for my tastes... especially when deriving ´ending´, much less intermediate, spaces for arbitrarily sized creatures from center-to-center paths isn´t the most straight forward of things you can do on a grid)Checking the rules, Charge itself doesn´t actually have a requirement that you travel in a straight line per se*, it just requires moving directly towards the target...You need a direct, clear, path to the target, and if any line from your starting space to the end space of the charge passes through something that would prevent charging you can't do it. Again, if you actually try this on the grid, the only way you can comform to all the restrictions is if your character travels in a straight line. Or, to put it another way, the most direct route anywhere is a straight line... and charge says you must take the most direct route.
I think you´re mis-understanding me, especially the tangent I marked with two asterisk (**), I specifically used the word ´direct´ and dropped the other stuff because it´s irrelevant to this thread, not because I think it doesn´t apply some-how. Obviously, a direct path to a STATIONARY target is straight... If a target moves during your movement (either because they themself moved away, or you Bullrushed them to a different location) the direct path will now be a straight line in a DIFFERENT orientation than your previous movement, meaning the total movement is now NOT straight, but bent or curved. So in otherwords, even if your Bullrush shunts the target OFF the path of the Charge, you can continue to follow them, since doing so is still the most direct path towards them...
I always read an attack as it is written, in singular form, in other words 1 attack.
Obviously I was wrong, but you should be able to see why I thought that.
You´re right that ´an attack´ IS in the singular... But read back a bit into the sentence, and you´ll see that those actions are couched as EXAMPLES you CAN take, but are not an EXHAUSTIVE list: That´s what the phrase ´such as´ means.
As you can see, rake begins on the second round after you have maintained the hold. Unlike constrict which works whenever you make ANY successful...
I've always thought constrict should start the next round, like (grapple-based) rake. It seems like most critters take a while after they wrap something up to actually squish it. Seems like that should be the default, and instant constrict a function of some ridiculous super constricting beast's other special ability.
After all, there was always time for Marlin Perkins to get some narration in before Jim Fowler seemed to be getting really squeezed.
|
|
As for counting as flanking when grappled... You can't make AoO when grappled, so you don't threaten (threatening being a part of the AoO rules in the first place), so you don't count as flanking.
Is that really the case? No AoO = Not threatening?
I know Threatening is a requirement for being able to make AoOs, but I didn't believe being able to make AoOs was a requirement for Threatening.
Note in 3.5 this was clear, if you were grappling you didn't Threaten (so definately no AoO or Flanking), however Paizo explicitly changed that to say if you're grappling you can't make AoOs, so I infer that was intended so that you could be grappling someone and still provide flanking to your ally on the opposite side of the foe you are grappling - especially since Paizo also made the change that you don't move into your grappler's square and so there is definite placement to rule on flanking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for counting as flanking when grappled... You can't make AoO when grappled, so you don't threaten (threatening being a part of the AoO rules in the first place), so you don't count as flanking.Is that really the case? No AoO = Not threatening?
My interpretation is that this is in fact not correct. Here are the rules in question:
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn...If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
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.
There's nothing that states you have to be able to make an AoO to threaten or flank. To flank, you need to be threatening a target. To threaten a target, you need to be able to make a melee attack into it's square, and be armed.
Now, it is true that the section on Threatened Squares is a subsection of the Attacks of Opportunity section. However, consider this. If you do not have Combat Reflexes and you've already taken an AoO this round, would you not still provide a Flanking bonus to your allies?
As I continue to mull it over,
it seems that my original concerns over Charging Bullrushes are, or could easily be, addressed to no longer be an issue.
But what is still getting me over this ´new´ approach to Bullrushes would still HUGELY impede Medium(or smaller), Non-Reach characters when Bullrushing adjacent targets, especially if they are NOT Charging (if that aspect was fixed): They can ONLY Bullrush in 45° and 90° directions in this case. Using a normal Move Action before the Bullrush (and not ´following the Bullrush´), there isn´t even necessarily ANY additional line that could be potentially included by a future clarification, as per Charge (i.e. they could have been zig-ing and zag-ing thru enemies or terrain). So this change is basically DRASTICALLY reducing the potential Bullrush vectors by choosing to further the ´dictatorship of the grid´... All for some alleged benefit of some larger-size/Reach Bullrushers who choose to ´follow´ the target and ´steer´ the target between the grid ´wiggle room´ (complicating combat in the process)... If that is even a benefit at all, and not just a case where the down-side doesn´t apply as much.
While I initially LIKED certain aspects of the ´clarification´, i.e. ´off-center´ Bullrushes tending to shunt the target to the side, it just has too big of negative repurcussions for the STANDARD game case, i.e. Medium non-Reach characters. Even the underlying premise seems to be pretty dubious, namely that characters are located (Center of Gravity-wise) at the exact center of their space, which isn´t really held up by other areas of the rules to my knowledge.
I don´t know what the ideal fix would be...
As mentioned, I don´t see what was problematic about the previous state of affairs, which didn´t specify much besides that they had to move away/closer to you. If something more specific IS needed, it seems like if the rule was a bit broader than ONLY center-to-center, it wouldn´t have these issues. Perhaps saying the 2 lines from YOUR center to the enemy´s furthest corners (or lateral corners in case of diagonal enemies) define the maximal deflection you can achieve, but ANY trajectory between those two lines is valid. That basically prevents extremely lateral (or even ´negative´/reverse) Bullrushes, which seems the only plausible goal in specifying all of this. In such a revision, it seems like Charge Bullrushes could even be restricted to a ´cone´ of possible trajectories that is centered around the Charge line of movement...? Possibly that could be implemented via the Spell Area Cone diagrams?
It would also be nice to know what happens when movement is stopped by walls, etc... If they fall down / are damaged or whatever, but also if the Bullrush has a lateral vector to the wall (i.e.at an angle into the wall-face), would excess movment be translated, or shunted, to the side?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
the section on Threatened Squares is a subsection of the Attacks of Opportunity section
Right, along with where Crits and other details are located under the Attack action. The Combat chapter, along with other linked subjects, is actually rather poorly organized when you actually look at it, and don´t just stay in ´D&D grognard who knows how everything works´ mode. Like Criticals and rules for Ranged attacks, I don´t think the game works if you read it literally in that sense. In this case, the rules themselves are mixed up, specifically if you look at the part about unarmed =/= threatening =/= AoO.
To your issue, Grappled characters can obviously attack any square as per normal, i.e. it doesn´t affect their threat area at all. Flanking itself never mentions the ability to make AoO´s. Another case: Confusion, which removes the ability to take AoOs vs. new targets. So imagine you roll ´attack nearest person´, but lo and behold you can´t take an AoO vs. them, so by this reading you don´t threaten them, which is a requirement to make an attack in the first place.You normally threaten while Grappled, and count as per normal for Flanking.
|
|
Re: the threaten area Vs AoO issue. To be honest, this one probably needs it's own thread, but just for now...
The 'Threatened Squares' text is part of the Attacks of Opportunity section of the rules.
The text states, 'You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when its not your turn...' which could be interpreted as meaning you need to be able to potentially make attacks into those squares when it isn't your turn (i.e. AoO) in order to be classed as threatening them.
The text also goes on to state that, '... If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.' Which suggests that the ability to make AoO and the condition of threatening a square are tied together. Not threatening doesn't mean an unarmed character can't make attacks into adjacent squares at all, after all - it means he can't make AoO into them. The exact same condition a grappled character finds himself in.
If you can't make AoO then what on Golarion are you actually threatening your foe with? Bad language? That's about all you can do when it's not your turn if you're not threatening AoO...
If you can't make AoO against a foe, then why on Golarion would he worry about turning his back on you to face your buddy? That's the whole point of flanking, after all - the enemy is dividing their attention in such a way as they can't defend themselves fully against either one of you.
So, as far as I see it, you need to ignore what's happening in-game and apply a healthy dose of semantics to the rules to conclude that a guy who can't make AoO is still classes as threatening anything.
YMMV, of course, and all IMHO.