Rigg Gargadilly

Gamuniga's page

19 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


The cover is by Wayne if I’m not wrong. His style changed quite a bit it seems: now it’s a bit less cartoony, and more... paint-like?
I prefer The PF1 style.

About dwarves, what creeps me is the wide nose (page 166), they remind me of a bull terrier.


Could be, but this would make it quite costly, since it would cost 1 action, 1 reaction, and a DC 20 check to try Aiding someone.


The Aid action states:

To use this reaction, you must first prepare to help, usually by using an action during your turn. You must explain to the GM exactly how you’re trying to help, and they determine whether you can Aid your ally.

I don't understand what the action should be:

◾A specific action, described in some part of the rulebook?
◾Just an action lost, without any effect whatsoever?
◾The use of an actual action functionally geared to help - i.e. to aid a Strike, I also use a Strike against the same enemy?
◾If the previous case is the correct one, can I also prepare to Aid by using an activity - i.e. to aid a Strike, I cast a 2-action attack spell against the same enemy?

Thanks for any insight you might provide!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorry for the clickbait-y title, but the more I think about it the more I think this is how I feel: art in the Core Rulebook is not that great, bar some exceptions.
Just to be clear, I', not dissing the game: by "art is not that great", I mean to say that "art is only good, not great: I was expecting more given the budget and importance of this flagship product"

First, there's much less Wayne Reynolds that I'd like. And in my opinion Wayne is a big part of the Pathfinder "feel".

Second, some artwork is decidedly low in details in my opinion: for example, I really don't like the image on page 466, it is really basic and with very few details.

Granted, there are some really great pieces too: the culture images on pages 430-432 are fantastic.

In any case, the art does not detract at all from what I consider to be a fantastic second edition!

What are you opinions on the art?


So, a greatpick (has Fatal d12) when critting would roll (1d12 x2) + 1d12?


On this topic...

On page 446, it states: “If a feat, magic item, spell, or other effect does not list a critical success or critical failure, treat is as an ordinary success or failure instead.”

Does this mean that if (for example) a spell does not have a critical success listed, then a natural 20 will net you only a success? So no double damage, for example?


Well, the Constrictor Snake is special case - it can grapple a single opponent, so you're right: maintaining the grapple is pretty much his only sensible option.

My trouble was more with the multi-grabbing creatures - say, kraken. I couldn't figure out how it was meant to happen that a creature grapples and "locks" multiple PCs simultaneously, constantly. But it seems i found a valid answer (in the thread i referenced).


Oh, i see now.

Let me try to re-phrase, so that i see if i really get it:

Yes, the rules says you must choose free/release or standard/maintain, true. But i will choose later in my round - for now i'll just do a full attack. Next, i will choose free/release, since i will have only free actions available. But - lo and behold - with my full attack i just re-grappled them all, so there is no need to free/release them - it's first grapple round all over again!

Something like this, right?

I would wonder if the free/release consequence still applies to the newly-re-grappled PCs, but we could say no. As far as the rules "see it" they (the PCs) are just victims of the "first" grapple round, so the maintaining concept does not apply at all.

The kraken still loses the +5, but at least he can take advantage of the PC's grapple condition, and there are no "gaps" in the grapple - they are effectively constantly grappled.

It could work. Thanks!

Does anyone else has any other insights? Thank you all for a great discussion :)


I have opened a similar thread here, a while ago: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ppba?Help-on-Grab-s-hold-option

I too have many doubts about how to handle a multiple grapple, and the "release & repeat" seems to be the only way to go.

What bothers me is that, using the "release & repeat":

  • The players can ready an action "when the kraken/roc releases me..." (and it's the DM's duty to tell the players that is does, it would be wrong - at least to me - to describe them the "release & repeat" as a "he continuously grapples you"
  • On the subsequent rounds, when the "repeat" happens, the players are not grappled anymore (having just been "released"), so the kraken/roc has no bonuses to take advantage of - it's "first grapple round" all over again, which is a bit anti-climatic to me


Quandary, what you're proposing is quite interesting... but is really even possible?

The SRD says:

SRD wrote:
Although both creatures have the grappled condition, you can, as the creature that initiated the grapple, release the grapple as a free action, removing the condition from both you and the target. If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold.

This reads to me as clearly cut: either release as a free action, or mantain as a standard action.


Thank you all for the great debate!

DM_Blake wrote:
Note that, assuming the Kraken hits & grapples every round, we could describe it as if the Kraken continued holding them. This would be fluff rather than what really happened. But since it's logically the same - either way the Kraken applies squeezing damage every round on its turn and the PCs are grappled every round on their turn - we could just pretend the Kraken simply never really let go as long as it keeps hitting each round and keeps succeeding on the grapple checks.

Yes, that is exactly my point: the "release+re-grab" could be simply described as "he keeps you all in its clutches", and this could work well.

The thing that bothers me is that - mechanically - it is just a brand-new attack for the kraken, so the kraken on the subsequent rounds would not have the +5 for maintaining and the PCs would not have the grappled condition at the time of the kraken's attack. It's first round grapple all over again!

Also, this:

Roanark wrote:
Except for the fact that if the PC's saw that they were being dropped as a free action at the start of each of the Kraken's turns then they could all ready an action to move out of range as soon as that happened. This would interrupt the Kraken from being able to re-establish a lock and would break the last part of your statement :)

To be fair, the DM should actually tell the PCs that they are being dropped and re-grabbed, because not describing/telling them so would prevent them from readying such actions, which is unfair. And this revelation breaks the "illusion" of being constantly grappled, and reveals the ruse for what it is: a drop&re-grab

Quandary wrote:

Taking that into account, the Kraken (or whoever) has no limitation preventing them from Full Attacking

on the round after they Grabbed a bunch of targets (Grappled Condition doesn't prevent Full Attack),
so I just don't see anything preventing the Kraken from Full Attacking the Grappled targets at the beginning of their turn,
and the Grapple is only automatically dropped if/when they don't Maintain it that round.
But the Full Attack/Grab combo initiates NEW Grapples which don't expire until the next round after.
As I said, this IS forgoing the +5 bonus for Maintaining Grapples, which is a signifigant difference vs. Maintain.

Yes, nothing prevents this, and it seems that this is the "only" way the rules (as i understand them, which might not be the correct way) allow to achieve something similar to a constant multiple grapple.

But then again, it's not really constant: it has not the +5, the PCs haven't got the "grappled" condition, and they flow could be broken by readying an action to trigger when they are released.

It's the only way i see it can be played out, but it leaves me a very sour taste in my mouth.

Is there another way to handle it? What are the experiences of others GMs on this?


Yes, that's exactly my point. I would really like to understand how to "keep" multiple PCs grabbed/grapple/held (whatever's it's called) round over round (assuming it makes sense for the monster, like in the kraken's case).


Thanks everybody for the replies.

OK, so i think i am starting to understand the matter subject, but there are still some grey areas for me.

The way to model a kraken grabbing and holding a handful of PCs is to (each round) do: full attack + grab + grapple each one + release them as a free action on the next round. Rinse, repeat.

Is this the way to achieve a "grapple-lock"? I guess it did not occur to me, because, strictly speaking, each round the monster is actually releasing and re-grabbing the PCs. But this strict narration of the underlying mechanic can be just as easily described as the kraken still holding you (of course, only if he chooses to full attack and re-grab them each round).

Am i getting close?

With this interpretation, maybe the "Maintain grapple" option might be more appropriately phrased as "Improve your grapple" (to pin, move, damage, etc), and the "hold" phrasing in the grab ability is what really models the fact that the monster is, well, keeping you grasped you in its clutches. Even if strictly rules-wise, he is "releasing and re-grabbing" you each round.

Quandary wrote:
They don't get the +5 bonus to CMB for Maintaining, but if the Grapple doesn't actually drop until the end of their turn (if they don't Maintain it) then the targets' AC/CMD still would suffer the DEX penalty from Grappled Condition.

Quandary, i'm trying to understand the bolded sentence there, which seems to be at the core of the "release-full attack-grab-grapple" round-by-round routine.

As per CRB200, "...you can, as the creature that initiated the grapple, release the grapple as a free action, removing the condition from both you and the target.", which gives the kraken only this option each round:

A) release the PCs (free), full attack+grab+grapple: in this case, the PCs are not grappled when the full attack begins (since they have just been released), so they do not suffer the AC/CMD penalty

I see no other way of handling it, because if it does not free the PCs, it must use a standard action to maintain them, but if there are five of them then this clearly cannot be done.

So, while i get that the release/full attack+grab+grapple can be used to simulate a constant grasp on the PCs, it seems to me that - mechanically - this is not happening, because in the subsequent turns the PCs must be released (thereby losing the grappling condition) and then re-grabbed. Making each round essentially a repetition of the first one, and imposing no penalties in the subsequent rounds to simulate the PCs being constantly grabbed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hello everybody,

I would really appreciate some help in understanding the Grab (Ex) Universal Monster Rule, specifically the "...simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent" part.

I can't understand what this "hold" entails, and what use it has.

A) is "held" a (non-clearly-defined) condition, different from "grappled"? or is just another way of saying "in a grapple", with the difference that the creature that used the Grab (Ex) is not considered grappled, only its victim is?

B) what use has this "hold" option? Take for example the constrictor snake... Is there any case in which it would make sense to use the "hold" option, giving that it occupies its only "body part", and leaves him without other attacks?

C) speaking of this, i would imagine a constrictor snake would be able to constrict one opponent with its "spires body part", while biting another one (or the same) with its bite attacks... But this does not seem modeled in the game. The snake has only one "body part" (bite)

D) even a kraken, it seems like he is not able to grab 5 PCs and keep them "grappled" (or "held", for that matter), because - even if it has enough body parts - maintaining a grapple/"hold" is a standard action, and he can do only one such action on its round. So it can mantain a grapple/"hold" on one PC, but must release the others. I see no way for a kraken for grapple/"hold"-lock PCs round over round, so that they are constantly grappled (except if they break free, of course).

E) in concluding, i cannot see the use of the "hold" option, since it entails a hefty -20 penalty which practically renders it useless. I would imagine that this mysterious (to me) "hold" option is used to model those monster (like the kraken or the snake) that can grapple one or multiple targets without needing to devote their full attention to it, and keep them "locked" and held in their grasp. But the -20 makes it almost impossible to pull off, and the standard action requirement makes it inapplicable to multiple targets.

As for the rest of the grapple/grab/constrict rules, i believe i have them nailed down, thanks to some useful resources: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Grapple and http://www.dorkistan.com/dorkistan/PFRPG/misc/grapple.htm - but these do not spend much words on the "hold" option.

Thanks to anyone who takes the time to clarify this for me, or at least point me to a helpful thread!


The gnome racial entry said "The DC for these spells is equal to 10 + the spell's level + the gnome's Charisma modifier." and that got me thinking.
I know that speak with animals has no saving throw... but hey, i told you it was a purely academical exercise :)

@blackbloodtroll of course your explanation makes sense story-wise, but i was referring to the monster definition as per the Glossary, this.

Again, this is just me being pedant. I already got a good enough response, i was just nitpicking to find a written rule, but that's really not necessary.

Thank you all again!


(Really, i'm just being pedant here)
Hmmm... this is the SLA definition from the monster rules, and also explicitly rerefences "a monster": i guess it might work anyway, if we stretch the definition of "monster" a bit to also include "gnome race".
I guess that's not entirely correct as per the Glossary definition of "monster".

But really, that's OK: i like the "...presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order." bit, that gives me a rough order of precedence when determining which version is being cast (druid 1, in my example).

Thank you!


Hello everybody!

There's this purely tecnhical issue that keeps bugging me: i tried searching the forums and looking at the FAQ, but i couldn't find a clear answer.
If have a gnome fighter, what is the spell level of its "speak with animals" spell-like ability?

  • "speak with animals" is listed as being bard 3, druid 1, ranger 1
  • This FAQ entry does not apply, and it's the closest thing that i found.

I know this could be easily handwaived by the GM with a simple decision, but i just wanted to know if there is an "official" ruling - or if i simply miunderstood the rules.

Thank you for any replies, and kudos to Paizo for their wonderful products!


Thank you very much in advance! I really appreciate your gesture and look forward to it! :)


Scott, i also join all the other in thanking you and complimenting you for the quality of your work.

Thing is, i would also like to download the updated PDF compilations. Is there any way we can get hold of them? The blog has not been updated in a long time, and the files expired on the hosting sites.

I hope you're still watching this topic.

Thank you again for your precious work!