Iron Giant's page

Note 6 on the Actions table in the Combat Chapter:

Quote:

6 Some combat maneuvers substitute for a melee attack, not an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full-attack action, or even as an attack of opportunity. Others are used as a separate action.

This phrase, and others like it in the various combat maneuver descriptions have given me the impression in the past that a "melee attack" is the wording for a non-ranged, non-combat maneuver attack. There have been a lot of good points brought up by both sides. I'm tempted to discuss semantics of words like "substitute", but that is probably a dead-end. Instead, here is my rationale: if combat maneuvers are all melee attacks, and combat maneuvers like trip can be used "in place of a melee attack", then by extension you could substitute a trip, disarm, sunder, or bull rush in whenever you have the opportunity to make any other kind of combat maneuver. There are a variety of feats and abilities that would become pretty questionable if this were the case.

It talks about grappling 2 people but I fail to see how I can actually do that without having one of the feats to lower grapple action, such as greater grapple.

Also if I did have greater grapple would these together allow me to have each grapple check effect 2 people?

There are a few ways to do it. A full attack with grab could allow you to grapple two opponents. Snapping Turtle Clutch could also work under the right circumstances.

The way I initially read the feat is that each action that allows a grapple check lets you apply the one roll+CMB against each opponents CMD. Success lets you move or damage that enemy. The more I analyze the wording, the more things come into question. It's not clear if separate rolls are made for each enemy, or if you can move one and damage the other.

So to sum up, I think you need a feat or ability to get two opponents into a grapple initially, but once they are in the grapple each check can be applied to both enemies. It's worth noting that this can't be used to pin or tie up creatures.

Quote:

Its like taking str damage till str9 and cant power attack anymore?

Ability damage doesn't work like that. It doesn't reduce the score at all. A character with 14 strength who has taken 6 points of strength damage still has a 14 strength, not 8 strength. You can still power attack, because you still have a strength of 14.

Quote:

Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal damage directly to your ability scores. This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability.

For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability. If the amount of ability damage you have taken equals or exceeds your ability score, you immediately fall unconscious until the damage is less than your ability score. The only exception to this is your Constitution score. If the damage to your Constitution is equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you die. Unless otherwise noted, damage to your ability scores is healed at the rate of 1 per day to each ability score that has been damaged. Ability damage can be healed through the use of spells, such as lesser restoration.

Ability drain, on the other hand, does reduce the ability.

Good catch. I just realized that ability score damage / penalty doesn't apply to carrying capacity because of this. Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't seem quite as bad now.

Personally I have found the feat strongest with Summoners (Synthesist Types) and Hunters.

If youa re druid, your best bet would be to take a single level dip into Mammoth Rider. You can then ramp up your snake to huge size, giving LARGE bonuses to CMB, and allowing grappling of everything up to Collosal (or is it gargantuan?)

Unfortunately, a single level dip gets you +2 strength (+1 CMB), -1 to attack rolls (-1 CMB), and a size bonus (+1 CMB over large). With the -2 dex, CMD ends up a wash. +1 total CMB is nice, but I don't know if it alone is worth a dip.

If the archetype ability says "this ability replaces X" or "this ability replaces X" then it doesn't work with another archetype that also replaces or modifies X. If this is explicitly stated, then there is no question of the legality. Sometimes (often with bonus feats, class skills, and weapon proficiency) this is implicitly stated, but it shouldn't be hard to discern.

For instance, a lot of people would like to be able to take a one level dip in Sohei/Master of Many Styles to get a style feat and the Sohei surprise round ability, but one adds an option for a bonus feat and the other changes the bonus feats. Mechanically someone could easily just choose not to take the extra bonus feat option, but it is still an illegal combo.

I think it's worth keeping in mind that sometimes the designers purposely don't want to see certain archetype combos together for a variety of reasons. While there might not be a reason the two couldn't work together, that's their way of restricting access to both. As stated before, a GM in a home game could obviously rule the way they want, but in an environment like PFS you'll have issues.

Can someone link to the thread where skr clarified how charge is supposed to work (it's not as limited as it reads)? I'm on my phone.

It can be found here.

my apologies, I was just trying to ensure I was clear about things.

IMO, better to take Bred for war & a second trait that does something different as BfW covers what Serpentine Squeeze does already.

No problem Dolanar. I just used the bold text as an eye catcher in case someone was glossing over the posts after reading the initial one.

I'm probably going to take Honored Fist of the Society instead of Serpentine Squeeze. I think Serpentine Squeeze is a bit better for a dedicated grappler, but I never really liked the idea of worshipping Ydersius anyways.

Nefreet- that seems so simple and straightforward, but I keep going back to the AC example that seemingly contradicts this. I understand that AC is a statistic rather than a check, but I can't find evidence of a check and a statistic following different stacking rules.

Bonus: Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.

Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic.

I'm pretty sure the designers just wanted one trait that worked for all combat maneuver offense and another that simply worked just for grapple (offense and defense), neither of which that were intended to stack. It's a safe bet that I'm entirely over thinking it.

On a side note, I can't believe I typed "Bread for War". I must have been getting hungry LOL.

First things first, even before my initial post, I was 99% sure that 2 and 3 didn't stack with each other. The aim of the topic was more to see how each of them interacted with 1. I get the feeling that some participants in this thread are focusing on the part that seems clear cut.

I also used competence bonus for the first post as a generalized example of a bonus that I knew wouldn't stack on the same thing when worded in exactly the same way, i.e. it was clear that two bonuses worded like 1, 2, or 3 didn't stack with a different bonus of the same number.

Just to make a few things clear, I feel that I am very familiar with the stacking rules as they are presented in the CRB. My uncertainty has more to do with how a bonus type changes when applied at different points in the stack and where those points are.

In my armor class example, the enhancement bonus to natural armor raises the natural armor bonus to AC. Similarly, the enhancement bonus to a shield raises the shield bonus to AC. When tallying the final AC, we then stack the enhanced natural armor bonus and enhanced shield bonus. Thus the individual enhancement bonuses to the shield and natural armor are effectively converted into different bonuses as they go through different points of the process.

Going back to the trait bonus example, the order of stacking and where the bonuses get stacked becomes important. The exact wording states:
A

CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier

Some feats and abilities grant a bonus to your CMB when performing specific maneuvers.

and

B

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.

I first assume that an "attempt to perform a combat maneuver" is the same thing as a "combat maneuver check" (looking through examples of the term in the CRB heavily supports the interchangeability). Next, the trait bonus provided by "Bred for War" increases the combat maneuver bonus (CMB). Following the same logic as the AC example above, the trait bonus from Bread for War is effectively converted into a combat maneuver bonus for part B, the combat maneuver check.

The question arises then of: at what point does the "Serpentine Squeeze" bonus to "combat maneuver checks(to grapple)" get added. If you think that this bonus is implicitly added to the point denoted by quote A, then it is apparent that there are two trait bonuses in the equation and they don't stack. On the other hand, if the trait bonus from Serpentine Squeeze is applied at the point denoted by quote B, then the Bred for War bonus has already effectively been converted into part of the combat maneuver bonus and the two traits would then stack.

Regardless. I'm honestly at the point where I wouldn't attempt to take the two traits together just because of the complexity involved. I just wanted to explain my train of thought.

claudekennilol wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

These seem somewhat contradictory to me. Do fired projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them, or not?

It depends on which spell you're under the effect of, as can be seen from the effects in your post.

But that's highly inconsistent...

Edit: Ninja'd by Gwen.

Belt of Giant Strength is an Enhancement Bonus to your Strength

+1 sword is an Enahncement Bonus to your attack,

same type, but affecting 2 different things, they stack

Amulet of Nat Armor is an Ehancement to Natural Armor, +1 Armor is an ehancement Bonus to Armor, +1 Shield is an ehancement bonus to Shield all 3 are different types, they stack

Bracers of Armor are an ehancement Bonus to Armor, +1 Armor is an ehancement Bonus to Armor, take whichever offers the greater Bonus, they do not stack.

But they all stack into AC. I've actually always played it the way you are stating, but if:

And a grapple check is d20 + CMB + grapple check bonuses (like the trait bonus from Serpentine Squeeze)

2) Natural Armor Bonus (net) = Natural Armor Bonus + other bonuses (like the Amulet of Natural Armor's enhancement bonus)

Shield bonus (net) = shield bonus + other bonuses (like the shield enhancement bonus)

Armor bonus (net) = armor bonus + other bonuses (like the armor enhancement bonus)

And
AC = 10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + Dexterity modifier + other modifiers

Based on the above, the same logic that makes 2 stack makes 1 stack. Therefore, they either both work or both don't work from what I can tell.

Iron Giant wrote:

That makes sense. I guess I was thinking it was more along the lines of a belt of giant strength stacking with a +1 longsword, but I guess in that case the bonus gets converted into an unnamed bonus after going through the ability.

It gets converted to a STRENGTH bonus, not unnamed

I suppose you're right. I've always thought of it as a "strength modifier", but combing through the crb I see quite a few instances in which strength mod and strength bonus are used interchangeably.

After putting some thought into this topic, I think I figured out what's hanging me up:
The amulet of natural armor is a wildly popular magic item that provides an enhancement bonus to natural armor. Additionally, people regularly take enhancement bonuses on shields and armor. If what is said above about a CMB enhancement bonus and a grapple check enhancement not stacking is correct, then any two enhancement bonuses in the AC bonus pile also don't stack. That would mean the amulet of natural armor, enhanced shield bonuses, and enhanced armor bonuses don't stack with one another. I've never heard anyone state something to this effect before. Is this true?

Competence bonuses do not stack; this means that you do not add the bonuses together for a given roll. The fact that they apply to "different things" is not really relevant; they apply to the same roll, and that is what matters.

Essentially, when grappling, you're rolling d20 + your CMB + whatever bonuses you get (subject to the stacking clause) + whatever penalties you get.

Similarly, when stabbing someone with a dagger, a +2 profane bonus to piercing damage rolls would not stack with a +2 profane bonus to weapon damage rolls even though they are "different", as they apply to the same roll (the damage from stabbing with the dagger).

So I suppose these traits don't stack then:

Bred for War: You tower above most other humans and possess a physique of hard, corded muscle. You gain a +1 trait bonus on Intimidate checks and a +1 trait bonus on your CMB because of your great size. You must be at least 6 feet tall.

Serpentine Squeeze: You gain a +1 trait bonus on combat maneuver checks to grapple a foe, as well as a +1 trait bonus to your CMD whenever an opponent tries to grapple you.

That makes sense. I guess I was thinking it was more along the lines of a belt of giant strength stacking with a +1 longsword, but I guess in that case the bonus gets converted into an unnamed bonus after going through the ability.

Which of the following bonuses stack together?
1)a competence bonus to CMB
2)a competence bonus to grapple checks
3)a competence bonus to attack rolls

I ask because all of them are bonuses to 3 separate things, but they all end up applying to the same roll.

Rocs are classified as "Long" and thus have reduced reach, this is why their reach is 15ft despite being Gargantuan.

Are they classified somewhere that I'm not seeing? or is this just surmised from size reduction of the bestiary entry?

Iron Giant wrote:

Do biped (claws/paws), biped (hands) and/or avian body type animal companions gain the reach (10') ability when they reach a level that grants them the large size?

Base rules state that Large bipeds get a 10' natural reach and that large quadrapeds get a 5' reach.

Rather than asking if animal companions conform to the normal rules I would ask you, what makes you think they wouldn't?

There is nothing in the animal companion section stating their reach for size is any different than normal so it seems clear they use the standard rules.

The CRB actually states that the natural reach of typical "tall" large creatures is 10', but exceptions exist. It says nothing about being a biped, that much is only implied. Even if that was the means of determination, going strictly by body type from animal archive has issues in some of the categories. Vermin like the Giant Mantis are both tall and long. As Nefreet said, snakes seem to have 10' reach despite being the longest body type that I can think of. It's not an issue of animal companions being an exception as much as it is completely unaddressed in many circumstances.

I've put a lot of thought into the grapple rules, so here is my take on it:
The initial grapple and all grapple checks done by the controlling grappler are "grapple checks". The check done to escape or reverse a grapple is actually a different type of check despite the secondary grappler possibly gaining control of the grapple with a check. If you look at various feats/traits/abilities, you'll notice that the two appear to be discrete. That being said, I think the two available hands penalty only applies to "grapple checks" so it wouldn't apply to escape attempts.

There's a big thread on this here. Adding FAQs to that one might spur more action since there are already so many there.

PFS has a lot to answer for...

If it's for PFS surely that forum would be more appropriate.

I digress:
RAW a large (tall) creature has reach. A Gargantuan (tall) creature scaled down to large is still (tall). I don't see how there can be any ambiguity.

Unless you can show me where it says that AC's break that rule (like your example, that is a written exception)then it doesn't.

The question is universal, it's just that in PFS we face a variety of GMs with different rules interpretations when rules are vague. There also isn't much wiggle room from RAW there, despite common sense. So, for instance, even if a large (tall) creature always has reach 10', technically there is no reference explaining what constitutes long vs tall that I know of.

Regardless, if Nefreet hasn't had any issues in our region then it sounds like I shouldn't have an issue (especially since he is one of the people go to for interpretations).

Thanks guys.

I'm struggling to find one that isn't self evident from it's bestiary entry. Which AC is giving you difficulty specifically?

Unfortunately "self evident" often doesn't cut it in PFS. Animal companions tend have their own set of rules that aren't quite the same as the bestiary entry (a medium Deinonychus for instance has 5 attacks vs 4 attacks for instance). Furthermore, some bestiary entries list creature sizes that are unavailable to players (Tyrannosaurus). While this could probably be scaled down to the correct size and reach, it does leave a bit of ambiguity. RAW, I think these creatures technically don't have reach, but that seems silly to me.

I'm specifically interested in the reach of the T-rex, and to a lesser extent axe-beak and spinosaurus, but it would be nice to get a ruling on all of them.

I'd probably let the grappler make a grapple check versus the DC of the channel to hold on.

I'd either do this or give the cleric an extra break free grapple check using charisma bonus + cleric level as the CMB. There's nothing in the rules to set a precedent on the latter, it's just what I picture the designers doing.

I'm hoping to get an FAQ on this one. It's surprising to me that this hasn't been thoroughly addressed in the past since it's a CRB question, but I think with the ACG's Hunter now being out this is bound to come up more frequently.
In the CRB, table 8-4 states that large (tall) creatures have a reach of 10', while large (long) creatures have a range of only 5', with the footnote that:
* These values are typical for creatures of the indicated size. Some exceptions exist.
Based on that, "tall" appears to include both biped types and the avian type.
In this thread, it was clariified unofficially by Michael Brock that a large ape animal companion has the 10' reach, but that leaves many other animals still in question.

Do biped (claws/paws), biped (hands) and/or avian body type animal companions gain the reach (10') ability when they reach a level that grants them the large size?

Bump. I'm still hoping for some clarification on this.

First and foremost, I'm just gonna go ahead and profusely thank anyone that's been contributing to this thread !

I'll make a post writing in an orderly fashion the questions I'm still asking myself for clarity's sake.

1) Can I trigger the grab / WHW grapple check on a trip attack?

2) When i'm grappling with the WHW, I'm not grappled, does that mean I can make Aoos? If not, why?

3) When grappling and being not grappled, what happens if my foe tries to reverse the grapple?
Since I'm not grappled does it just break it or can I become grappled myself? In the last case could I use my Intelligence instead of my Strength when determining my CMD against an attempt to reverse the grapple?

4) Does Final Embrace allow me to constrict as a free action? Is the wording of the feat enough to uphold a size limit to what I can constrict?

Thank you in advance !

1) It depends how you interpret "the hair strikes a foe". Note that grab states "hits with the indicated attack". Hitting is pretty well defined in the book, while "striking" is not. Typically, combat maneuvers are "successful" or not. If you're looking for airtight, then no, this doesn't work. I don't believe the RAI is supposed to have this work either, but that's my interpretation.

2) You can make an AoO, you just can't with your hair because its in use.

3) My interpretation is that both people have to have the grappled condition for a reverse to happen. This is pretty murky rules-wise. If you play in PFS, it's going to boil down to the GM.

4) Final Embrace gives you the normal grab ability all of the time, there is no need to activate it with an action. The wording thing is going to depend on the GM in PFS.

I know 3 and 4 are unsatisfying answers, but that is an unfortunate side effect of playing something like the WHW. Basic grappling has so many things that aren't defined in the CRB, but when you add in Bestiary abilities and other special stuff things get really confusing. When I first saw the new hunter class the first thing I thought of was doing tag-team grapplers using the Brutal Grappler feat. As of right now, I've shelved the idea though because so many things were undefined that there was no way to plan properly when my whole strategy was up to the GM's whim. Unfortunately, that's the price we have to pay to play with a lot of the more exotic rules.

When you say yes you mean that this is a mistake in the feat?

I don't much care about grab to be honest because the white haired witch already has a build in free grapple check. My question was more turned towards the size limit of constrict.

Another question that's popped into my mind is what happens if I'm grappling a target in the end of my round, and another target comes into AOO range? (I have 10 foot reach) Would I be able to stop grappling my first target and make the Aoo on the second one or would I be stuck with grappling my primary target because apparently releasing a grapple is a free action?

I have looked at the question you asked the designer Bruno and it seems to clear things up, thanks a lot !

Here is my interpretation :

- Without final embrace I can make a grapple check as a free action and constrict as a swift on creatures of ANY size.

- With final embrace I can still do that if I choose not to use the feat. However I can also use the grab ability on a creature my size or smaller (giving me a +4 to grapple check) and constrict creatures as a free action (do those creatures have to be my size or smaller? this still stays unclear).

Thanks a lot for your help I hope I will be able to clear things up before my game ! Playing GM credit characters for the first time is such a hassle ! :)

Edit : One another question : If I were to make a trip attack could I trigger Grab / the witch grapple check on it?

I am almost positive that the constrict thing is a mistake. IMHO, the universal monster rules trump a note on a feat. Further adding to all of it is the grab confusion.

As for your AoO question, a free action can only be done during your turn, so no, you can't release and AoO then (at least, not with the hair).

I don't know what all of the swift action talk is about. My PDF states the rule like this, all free actions. Note that it is different than PFSRD. Maybe they changed it and didn't tell anyone?

White Hair (Su): At 1st level, a white-haired witch gains

the ability to use her hair as a weapon. This functions as
a primary natural attack with a reach of 5 feet. The hair
deals 1d4 points of damage (1d3 for a Small witch) plus the
witch’s Intelligence modifier. In addition, whenever the
hair strikes a foe, the witch can attempt to grapple that foe
with her hair as a free action without provoking an attack
of opportunity, using her Intelligence modifier in place of
her Strength modifier when making the combat maneuver
check. When a white-haired witch grapples a foe in this
way, she does not gain the grappled condition.
At 4th level and every four levels thereafter, a whitehaired
witch’s hair adds 5 feet to its reach, to a maximum of
30 feet at 20th level.
The hair cannot be sundered or attacked as a separate
creature. In addition, a white-haired witch further improves
her ability to control her hair as she progresses in level,
gaining the following abilities.
Constrict (Ex): At 2nd level, when the white-haired witch’s
hair successfully grapples an opponent, it can begin
constricting her victim as a free action, dealing damage
equal to that of its attack.
Trip (Ex): At 4th level, a white-haired witch who
successfully strikes a foe with her hair can attempt a
combat maneuver check to trip the creature as a free action.
Pull (Ex): At 6th level, a white-haired witch who
successfully strikes a foe with her hair can attempt a
combat maneuver check to pull the creature 5 feet closer
to her as a free action.
Strangle (Ex): At 8th level, when the white-haired witch’s
hair is grappling with an opponent, that creature is
considered strangled, and cannot speak or cast spells with
verbal components.
This ability replaces hex.

As for getting and using Final Embrace, keep in mind if you used the feat (as a normal grab attack with hair), you'd have to do it like anyone else. It looks like you definitely would get the grappled condition and would probably have to use strength for CMB.

The only blocking point for the WHW is constrict but since it has no size limit apparently it should work out. The WHW doesn't have grab per se so I don't think a GM could enforce a size limit on her free grapple check.

The thing that disturbs me a bit is that the final embrace feat says you can only constrict creatures your size or smaller (without the feat), is that a mistake in the feat description?

Yes. The FAQ I posted the link to above is the final word on this. As long as the FAQ isn't changed then grab works the way it says:

Grab: The grab rules for the Bestiary say the ability only works on creatures smaller than the monster, but the grab rules for Bestiary 2 say the ability works on creatures of up to the monster's own size. Which is correct?

Bestiary 2 is the new, updated version: grab works on creatures up to the size of the monster with the grab ability. The next time we do a reprint of the original Bestiary, we'll update all references to grab and similar abilities to reflect this change.

As for Bestiary 4, somebody must have overlooked it and copy/pasted from the first Bestiary. Both the second and third Bestiary agree with this FAQ.

You still have to get through the hardness to do anything, and magic items get a saving throw. It can be useful for things like spell component pouches, but you have to be at a pretty high bard level to break much else.

LazarX wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Where does it say that constrict is normally limited to things smaller than your size?

I'm actually hoping that it is because I have a player that is using a WHW build that is literally wrecking things, but this could make a big difference if this is correct.

Are you auditing the CMB of the witch and the CMD of their defenses properly?

I am unsure. Are there specfic things I should be looking at, or that I might be over looking?

I should add they took 3 levels in WHW to get constrict and then multiclassed into monk with FCT for their hair.

I'm imagining a few potential problems that could be the cause of the problem. Unfortunately, the rules for white haired witch are a bit unclear. In this thread, James Jacobs describes the hair as functioning like the monster ability grab. Looking at the grab rule, the WHW ability appears to function like the "hold" part of the ability, but without the -20 to CMB.

I see some important implications to this:
1) Successfully grappling with the hair ties up that attack from doing anything other than grapple checks while that part of its body is holding the enemy.
2) The hold part of grab only allows checks for damage (and constrict). You can't use it to pin, tie up, or move.
3) If the WHW ability is indeed just like the grab monster ability, the Witch gets +4 bonus to start and maintain a grapple.

I personally think 3 is a bit shaky because having an ability that functions like grab wouldn't necessarily mean it has grab.

Going back to the WHW/monk, I imagine they are taking the combo to flurry with the hair. Ignoring the things stated above, you could flurry to grab 3 times in a single turn and pin the opponent. As seen here, flurry doesn't provide nearly that much benefit because once the hair successfully grabs it can no longer take part in a flurry.

At least that's my interpretation of the rules.

Faskill: There is no size restriction on constrict. The size restriction is on grab and is your size or smaller. There is some confusion on this because Bestiary 1 and 2 don't agree on this. There is this FAQ to clear it up though.

Ask him if you get to attack everyone within the 5' area around you when you use dazzling display.

That sounds like a new feat with a prerequisite list a mile long "Whirlwind Dazzle".

Thanks Tom. That's a well thought out response. In my hurry to get everything up I did make a few errors. I must have pasted the greater whip mastery description in for the knights of the penitent description with all of the references open. Additionally, the rope tricks are in the PFS Field Guide pg 49.

Hogtie (Improved Grapple): When you attempt to tie up an opponent you are grappling, your penalty is only –5 instead of the normal –10.

It uses the same language as the original rule "tie up an opponent you are grappling", so if you favor this meaning "tie up an opponent that has the grappled condition" then it supports option B. On the other hand, if grappling simply means something you are applying grapple checks to, then it doesn't mean anything for either option.

One thing is for sure: if option A is correct, then the Expert Captor ability goes from being a pretty good efficiency dip for a grappler to an absolute necessity for anyone focused on tie-ups.

Well, since grappled and pinned are two separate conditions with different penalties (glossary here, but the word tags aren't working), and since the original Tie Up wording about the penalty only refers to grappled condition, I don't see how to read that section and get interpretation number 1.

My reading is that the Bedayar Kidnapper ability is the poorly worded one, especially since it's vague about the penalties and it's the one that's different from all the others.

(The tie up has other issues in the wording, such as not being clear what kind of action it takes, how you tie up a creature while your hands are busy holding the creature down, etc.)

I agree Gwen, but there is the slight bit of ambiguity in the sense that grapple and pinned are separate conditions that don't stack, but at the same time "pinned is a more severe version of grappled", so it could be seen as "grappling the target" I suppose. Also, to get really nit-picky, the controlling grappler could be seen as "grappling" the target despite the grappled creatures condition (he is after all doing "grapple checks" to do any of this stuff).

As I've said before, I read it as the two option version, but there are enough people out there that don't that this is worth questioning.

I've asked myself the same questions.
Looking carefully at the wording of Snakebite Striker: "If she gets a sneak attack bonus from another source, the bonuses on damage stack."

That sounds like the bonuses stack for a normal sneak attack and on a grapple sneak attack. If they didn't want the damage to stack, then they should have called the strangler damage "precision damage". After all, nothing in the strangler description allows the strangler to do a normal sneak attack, so the phrase isn't necessary if it doesn't stack as far as I can discern.

It's worth noting though that not all other sneak attack abilities have the sneak attack stacking phrase. The rogue/ninja including archetypes don't appear to have the phrase, nor does Slayer. AFAIK, that only leaves the vivisectionist for stacking, which isn't PFS legal, so the designers are probably less concerned if it can be abused.

I'd like to have this be an FAQ, but it would be nice to include Spell Like Abilites and Supernatural Abilities.

The same question arose in a thread about the bard archetype sound striker. You have to roll to hit (ranged touch), the damage is either B,P or S, and it's a supernatural ability. It's technically not called a ray though, so the question of whether or not point-blank shot and precise shot applied came up.

At this point, you should probably reposition your questions in the rules forums, frankly, so that other folks there can benefit...

You are absolutely right. I've done so and attached an FAQ. I didn't intend to turn this thread into "Ask James Jacobs a million grappling questions", I just got a bit carried away in my crusade to clarify all of the grappling rules. Thanks for all of your responses.

The Inevitable sub-type is another one.

Sometimes the authors can misunderstand the rules just like we can. It could also have been a typing error, in that they meant to say grappled in stead of pinned. In a home game I would assume they meant grappled instead of pinned to put it in line with similar abilities. In PFS I would interpret "otherwise restrained" to be grappling and provide the bonus, though by RAW i might be off.

I agree. In my other grapple thread there is an example of something getting an errata based on the rules writer writing with a 3.5 detail in mind.

That being said, the more I look at the rule here, the more the argument has some validity. In the two option version, it never says how the maneuver is done. It is assumed that the phrase "this works like a pin effect..." is referring to the maneuver check needed, but it may instead refer to the condition placed on the target once the tie up is in effect. If that is the case, then the "editors comment" on PFSRD is also incorrect, a tied up target does not get the helpless condition but instead has a more persistent type of pin condition.

The thing that makes the opposing view difficult to believe is the way it's phrased: "If you are grappling the target, you can attempt to tie him up in ropes, but doing so...". If the one option rule is right, the "grappling the target" part is either redundant (if the target is pinned of course he is grappled) or just wrong (if you view pinned as a separate condition than grappled).

I think the two option ruling makes more sense, but it would be great to get some of these nebulous rules cleared up. Grappling, along with politics, religion, stealth, and mounted combat, is still a surefire way to get into a rules debate in PFS. Rather than just shelf the rules for it I'd really like to nail them down.

I do believe you're right wraithstrike, but after a recent game dispute I've read that rule over and over, and I'm starting to see the ambiguity that led to the disagreement. Of the abilities that I listed, the Bekyar Kidnapper concerns me the most. In the version you and I both support, going from a pin to a tie up incurs no penalty. The kidnapper ability reduces the penalty when going from a pin to a tie up. Something isn't adding up there.

I wanted to leave the initial post free from conjecture and keep it as concise as possible for FAQ purposes. Unlike a lot of the rules that I questioned in my "Coming to Grips with Grappling" thread, this rule is fundamental to any grapple based character. Here are some of my thoughts on the matter:

I've always read the rule as you have two options: grappling from a pin is easier, but jumping straight to tie-up from a basic grapple can also be done, albeit at a -10 penalty to represent the difficulty of the task. This seems to be the popular opinion and is supported by the flow-chart referenced on PFSRD in the grapple section. That being said, a fan made flow chart isn't a ruling, even if the community helped make it. I've also come across internet blogs and a few posts on here that were under the impression that the one option version was correct.

Here are some relevant special rules/feats that bring the rule into question:
From the feat "Greater Whip Mastery", this seems to support the two options version.

Tie Up: While adjacent to your opponent, you can attempt to use your whip to tie him up. If you do so to an opponent you have grappled rather than pinned, you take only a –5 penalty on the combat maneuver check rather than the normal –10.

From the "Bekyar Kidnapper" archetype, we see a special ability that supports the one option version because the the two option version doesn't have a penalty from a pin:

Clean Capture (Ex): At 1st level, a Bekyar kidnapper reduces the penalty to her combat maneuver check to tie up a pinned or otherwise restrained target by an amount equal to 1/2 her rogue level. In addition, she can take the feats Improved Grapple and Greater Grapple as rogue talents. She can ignore the Improved Unarmed Strike requirement when selecting these feats as rogue talents, but must meet all other prerequisites. This ability replaces trapfinding.

There is also the "Order of the Penitent" ability, which when scrutinized, could go either way, but I'd say the wording supports the two option version:

Tie Up: While adjacent to your opponent, you can attempt to use your whip to tie him up. If you do so to an opponent you have grappled rather than pinned, you take only a –5 penalty on the combat maneuver check rather than the normal –10.

For completeness, there is also the Equipment Trick (rope): Hogtie

Hogtie (Improved Grapple): When you attempt to tie up an opponent you are grappling, your penalty is only –5 instead of the normal –10

Looking at the tie-up rules:

Tie Up: If you have your target pinned, otherwise

restrained, or unconscious, you can use rope to tie him up.
This works like a pin effect, but the DC to escape the bonds
is equal to 20 + your Combat Maneuver Bonus (instead
of your CMD). The ropes do not need to make a check
every round to maintain the pin. If you are grappling the
target, you can attempt to tie him up in ropes, but doing
so requires a combat maneuver check at a –10 penalty. If
the DC to escape from these bindings is higher than 20 +
the target’s CMB, the target cannot escape from the bonds,
even with a natural 20 on the check.

Is the rule saying that tie up requires a "pin" and essentially always gets the -10 penalty (one option), OR is it saying that a tie up done from a "pin" doesn't get the modifier, but a tie up done from a normal "grapple" does (two options)?

I'm sorry to ask so many grapple questions, but I have one more. I assure you, I wouldn't be wasting your time with this if I thought I could discern the answer from the rulebook:

Looking at the grappling rules

Tie Up: If you have your target pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious, you can use rope to tie him up. This works like a pin effect, but the DC to escape the bonds is equal to 20 + your Combat Maneuver Bonus (instead of your CMD). The ropes do not need to make a check every round to maintain the pin. If you are grappling the target, you can attempt to tie him up in ropes, but doing so requires a combat maneuver check at a –10 penalty. If the DC to escape from these bindings is higher than 20 + the target's CMB, the target cannot escape from the bonds, even with a natural 20 on the check.

I didn't even realize this, but there are two ways to interpret this:

1) The above is offering two options. The first is to go from pinned to tied up. Doing this check is the same check as the check to pin (i.e. no penalty). The other option is to go straight from a grapple to a pin, but skipping grapple incurs a -10 penalty.

2)The grappler MUST have the target pinned to attempt a tie up. When he does so, going from pinned to tied up incurs a -10 penalty.

The vast amount of responses here support 1. An often used, fan-made flowchart supports 1, and a few feats like "Greater Whip Mastery" are worded to support this. I was completely convinced that 1 was right until I had a GM rule 2. Then I saw an ability from Bekyar Kidnapper:

At 1st level, a Bekyar kidnapper reduces the penalty to her combat maneuver check to tie up a pinned or otherwise restrained target by an amount equal to 1/2 her rogue level.

Now I'm not so sure about anything...

I have been under the impression "melee attack" refers to a normal attack to do damage. In this thread, the issue came up in reference to Opportune Parry and Riposte - would a Trip, Disarm, or Sunder count as a melee attack?

(I have a vested interest because my next character will be a Swashbuckler... while I don't think a Trip attempt can be parried, that would be nice if it could!)

While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action.

Judging by the bolded bit there, I'm going to say no. A combat maneuver is an attack, as it uses an "attack roll", but I don't think it's a melee attack. Further evidence of this is that in table 8-2 in the CRB the two are listed as separate entries. The exception would be something like grab, where doing a melee attack gets you a bonus combat maneuver check.

That's my take on it at least.

So those questions were primarily focused on 8 and 9

Here's my interpretation now of how these work:

8)If a creature is able to do a grab attack on a creature that is currently grappled, what happens? Assuming someone else is doing the grapple, does it turn into an aid another/group grapple?

If the grabbing creature is an ally to the primary grappler, he can use the grab check to assist.

If he is an opponent, he can do an opposed CMB check to gain control of the grapple (and free the secondary grappler I assume). The second scenario is still a bit confusing and AFAIK unrepresented in the rulebook. Luckily, I don't think anyone would do the melee attack necessary to an ally to try to free them with grab.

If the creature itself is grappling, does he get a bonus grapple check?
No, the grab ability is wasted in the circumstance.

9)Is the "aid another" attempt done with CMB like a combat maneuver or is it exactly like any other combat aid another using a weapon attack roll?
Yes, CMB is used against DC 10.

When the second person helps, do they gain the grapple condition as well?

I actually still don't have a solid answer to this. I'm starting to think no though.

That clears up most of my questions. I could dig a bit deeper into the aspects of the "Brutal Grappler" feat, but I don't particularly want to dominate his question thread any more than I already have.

Here's the entirety of what I learned asking James Jacobs:

Iron Giant wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:
Iron Giant wrote:
I can't find an answer to this anywhere, so maybe you can help.
If a creature is able to do a grab attack on a creature that is currently grappled, what happens? Assuming someone else is doing the grapple, does it turn into an aid another/group grapple? If the creature itself is grappling, does he get a bonus grapple check?
A creature can aid another the grapple with its own check, or they can fight for control, in which case the highest CMB check to establish the grapple wins.
Thank you for your time! That actually clears up quite a few scenarios.
Just to verify the second part of my question, in the strange instance where the controlling grappler hits the grappled creature with a grab attack (not the grapple check for damage, which I assume doesn't get the grab special rule attached to it) he does get to do an extra grapple check for the normal options (pin, move, damage, etc)?
Also, are grapple aid another attempts done with CMB?
Thanks again. I know your time is valuable and I don't want to take it up with silly questions. Unfortunately, no one else knows how to answer them here or in my PFS group.
ASSUMING HE ISN'T WORKING WIHT THE CURRENT GRAPPLER... He's not the one grappling the foe. Even if the foe is already grappled by someone else, he'd need to treat his target as if he were just starting to grapple.

Yes. An aid another attempt with a grapple check is a grapple check (aka, a CMB check).

Iron Giant wrote:

There are two creatures involved in the combat, nobody else. One is an 8th level Tetori monk. The other is just some goblin.
The round starts with the monk already grappling the goblin. Because the monk has the "Greater Grapple" feat, he can maintain the grapple as a move action (and succeeds). Now with his standard action left over, he uses an unarmed strike on the goblin and spends a ki point to give the strike the grab ability. He is now using a grab attack on the same creature that he is currently grappling. The attack hits and resolves. Does he get the extra grapple check (to move, pin, damage, etc) or is the grab ability wasted?
This may seem like an unnecessary, esoteric question, but there are a variety of instances (snapping turtle clutch, white haired witch/hold, etc) where things like this can come up during grappling.
Nope. Once you're grappling a foe, the grab ability is a waste of calories to use. You can't use the grapple check granted by grab to sneak in additional pins and the like.

That clears up a lot.

One more tiny little question:
James Jacobs wrote:
Yes. An aid another attempt with a grapple check is a grapple check (aka, a CMB check).
Is this CMB check tested against the opponents CMD like any other grapple check, or against a CMD of 10 (the equivalent of the AC 10 that is normally used on an "Aid Another").
Aid Another checks are always against DC 10.

Hopefully that all makes sense. Copying and pasting doesn't highlight quotes the same way. Here is a link to the discussion being referenced.

Iron Giant wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Nope. Once you're grappling a foe, the grab ability is a waste of calories to use. You can't use the grapple check granted by grab to sneak in additional pins and the like.

That clears up a lot.

One more tiny little question:

James Jacobs wrote:

Yes. An aid another attempt with a grapple check is a grapple check (aka, a CMB check).

Is this CMB check tested against the opponents CMD like any other grapple check, or against a CMD of 10 (the equivalent of the AC 10 that is normally used on an "Aid Another").

Aid Another checks are always against DC 10.

Thanks a lot for your time. You've helped nail down quite a few loose ends in the grappling rules for me.

No. The creature maxes out at a claw per limb, so you'd need 4 arms to get 4 claws. The next question people ask is "what about feet?" In pathfinder, the general rule is that claws on feet are called talons. You can do 2 claws and 2 talons on a normal, bipedal creature, but the ability needs to say talons for that to work.

It sounds like you've got it.
It's the damaging grapples that stack, not the bleed damage that results during the creatures turn.

What DOESN'T happen:
First successful grapple that damages is 3. Opponents turn, they take 3 damage, stacking with the 3 it already has, for 6 bleed total. Your next turn, another successful grapple attempt, bringing the total up to 9. The creatures turn starts, it takes 9 bleed damage, bringing the total up to 18 bleed. Your next turn, another successful grapple attempt brings the total up to 21. The creatures turn starts, it takes 21 bleed damage, bringing the total up to 42 bleed damage (yikes)...

See how crazy that got? The way I read it, that's what they are trying to say doesn't happen.

At first I thought that this was a typo too. After reading it a few more times I think I get it. They are saying that the initial points stack, but the damage from the impending bleed damage doesn't stack on top of that. So for instance, first round a grapple check is done and thus 1 point of bleed damage is applied. At the beginning of the grappled creatures turn, that point of bleed damage does a point of damage to the creature, but the new amount of "bleed damage" as far as the condition is concerned stays at 1 point. The grappler's next turn he then succeeds in a grapple check, and applies another point of bleed damage. This type does stack. At the beginning of the creatures turn it then takes 2 points of damage from the bleed, but as far as the condition is concerned, the creature still has only 2 points of "bleed damage".

It's confusing, but since bleed almost never stacks they wanted people to realize that it's not an exponential growth in bleed damage. Hopefully that makes sense.

I've recently been dreaming up a Kirin Style alchemist bomber, that combo is the same idea as the first post. I've also considered what happens when someone multiclasses sacred fist with monk. A double wisdom mod to AC could be really powerful.

Nope. Once you're grappling a foe, the grab ability is a waste of calories to use. You can't use the grapple check granted by grab to sneak in additional pins and the like.

That clears up a lot.

Yes. An aid another attempt with a grapple check is a grapple check (aka, a CMB check).

Is this CMB check tested against the opponents CMD like any other grapple check, or against a CMD of 10 (the equivalent of the AC 10 that is normally used on an "Aid Another").

Thanks guys. Any input is helpful. I've been bugging James Jacobs with a few of these and I was able to get a bit of confirmation on some things.

Regarding #9 He said:
Yes. An aid another attempt with a grapple check is a grapple check (aka, a CMB check).

I'm going to assume that it's against AC10 like any other aid another attempt (I hate to verify, I feel like I'm already asking too many esoteric questions). When I get more info I'll copy and paste it here. It would be fantastic to nail down the grapple rules once and for all.