amscrey's page

As far as I know no gear is summoned with the eidolon.

I guess this would imply that the Eidolon enters and leaves the Summoner's Plane naked and any Gear carried by the Eidolon is left behind on that plane if the Eidolon is banished or killed. (as opposed to disappearing with the Eidolon but failing to return w/ Eidolon when summoned next)

EDIT: IF you guys are talking about a crab, aren't they mindless vermin and therefore ineligible for feats?

I used name "Grabber" to represent a creature with rend, grab and 3 claw attacks in my example. Thinking about Eidolon builds is what led me to my original questions posted in this thread (and some others that I have posted recently) but I would guess that any creature with rend could be advanced to have the 3 Feats needed.

This is a fringe case, however, as there isn't really a monster with greater grapple AND a 2 claw rend unless you stat one up.

With summoners part of the official rules it might not be fringe anymore. Sure, it won't happen until the Eidolon gets 3 feats, but they seem like 3 good feats for Eidolons to take to me. (at least bipeds)

After all, grapple checks and other combat maneuvers are attack rolls.

Are they? This question arose in my other thread as well. As I said above the language in the Combat->Combat Maneuvers portion of the srd encourages me to believe this but I have not heard any one else weigh in solidly on this yet and it seems to me some people are uncomfortable with this ruling. Under this ruling true strike can be used for a Combat Maneuver, correct?

EDIT: Ravingdork dork responded to essentially the same question as I had posted it in another thread:http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/path finderRPG/rules/grapplingBlink
Sorry for bridging threads.

Does anyone disagree and feel CM checks are not attacks? (I felt that was the implication of some of the posts I saw)

I apologize for posting this question if it has been answered before (and it seems to me it must have come up before) but I cannot find the answer.
Is there an answer in the srd (or an official ruling or at least a consensus among players) as to what happens to an Eidolon's gear when he is dismissed from his summoner, banished or "killed"? Does his stuff remain on the prime material plain? Does it go with him wherever he goes and return with him when he is summoned? Does something else happen? Are there different answers for the gear depending on whether it was worn, carried or equipped?

Thanks for the replies guys, I totally missed the "subsequent rounds" language under the grab description, however I still have some questions relating to combat maneuvers and their relations to "normal" attacks.

This was Tom's reply to my first question about using rend during a grapple: (the bold is mine)

No. Remember that checking to maintain a grapple is different than establishing a grapple. Also notice the language of rend (it requires successful attacks) and the language of the damage grapple action (it inflicts damage without an attack roll).

I have not found any wording in the Grapple/Damage Option description that states the option "inflicts damage without an attack roll". It seems clear that an attack roll does not need to be made using the grappler's "normal attack bonus" but the language here does not seem to me to weigh in on the question of whether the grapple maintenance check itself is considered an attack roll.

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus.

No. Remember that checking to maintain a grapple is different than establishing a grapple. Also notice the language of rend (it requires successful attacks) and the language of the damage grapple action (it inflicts damage without an attack roll).

(the bold is mine)

I recognize now that this difference (between initiating and maintaining) is very important in the context of using grab, but does it also have bearing on the rend question? Is the initiating CM roll considered an attack roll but a maintaining roll not?
It seems to me that the wording in the srd supports the notion that both the initiation check and the maintenance check are CM checks and that all CM checks are attack rolls (just not made with the "normal attack" bonus)
Of course even if the CM check that is made to damage a grappled foe is considered an attack roll I think the question still remains: Does that attack qualify for Rend's "If it hits with two or more natural attacks" requirement.

And that's an even easier solution. If the grappler fails against miss chance, the victim is freed. On the victim's turn, they can pretty much automatically free themselves, even if it is via shunting.

You could initiate a grapple but not maintain it! Blinking make you quickly move in and out of the material plane, many times per round.

Example: you succeed your initial grapple check by 'winning the mischance'. The grappled character can simply ready an action to move out of the grapple when you go ethereal, and since you go ethereal many times per round, he simply moves free during is turn...

These are interesting points. Under this interpretation it seems a grapple with one combatant blinking is unlikely to last long but I think it is a significantly different interpretation than one which would simply disallow an initiation check or essentially disallow the grappled state to be applied to the combatants - which is what I thought Karlgamer was driving towards: (I might be wrong about that)

I think that grapple probably shouldn't be able to work on a blinking creature.

Disallowing the grapple altogether is a pretty simple solution to the issue and it still seems to me there is a valid argument for either interpretation, but personally I prefer the messier solution - it leaves a lot of possibilities open.

Combat maneuvers are still attack rolls. Simply roll miss chances as normal for the spell. If the grappler is unable to start or maintain a grapple, then the target is freed. If the target moves to a different square while ethereal, that also frees him.

I like the idea of applying the mischance to the combat maneuvers checks just as they are applied to attack rolls but are combat maneuvers technically considered attack rolls? If the answer is yes it would seem to me that a grappler could use rend when damaging an opponent twice with his natural attacks even if one or both of those "damages" was applied via a maintain grapple check. Also this would seem to allow a true strike spell to be used for grappling and other combat maneuvers.

There seems to be some support for this in the Combat Maneuver Rules wording: (under Combat->Combat Maneuvers->Performing a Combat Maneuver)

If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver.

and

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus.

Whether or not CM rolls are technically considered "attacks rolls" I like the idea of applying mischance penalties (whatever the source) to the combat maneuvers.

I have a couple questions regarding grapples:

1) Are successful Grappling Combat Maneuver checks that are used to apply damage to a target considered "natural attacks" for the sake determining if Rend can be applied?
(A grappler with the Greater Grapple Feat can attempt two grapple checks in one round.)

2) Does the following scenerio sound legal (or have I missed an aspect of a rule or two that would prevent this).

A creature ("Grabber") with rend, grab and 3 claw attacks (and a very respectable CMB) takes a full attack action vs a single target at least one size smaller than itself:

first attack w/ claw hits, claw damage is applied and grab gives Grabber a free grapple check. The Grabber attempts the check at a -20 penalty to leave other limbs free and the check succeeds (the target is now grappled but Grabber is not)

second attack with claw hits target, claw damage and rend damage is applied and the Grabber gets another free grapple check. Since the target was already grappled The Grabber gets a +5 circumstance bonus on this check. The Grabber again opts for to take the -20 penalty to his CMB to leave all limbs free except the one already grappling. The check succeeds and the Grabber pins the target.

third attack with claw hits target, claw damage is applied. The Grabber gets another free grapple check with the same +5 circumstance bonus as before but this time opts to use all limbs for grappling so no -20 penalty is involved. The check succeeds and the Grabber ties the target up.

The Blink Spell description mentions that a "blinker" suffers a 20% mischance when attacking and those who attack him suffer a 50% mischance (unless those attackers can hit ethereal opponents and/or see invisible opponents) - How does this effect the grappling rules?

Can a combatant who is blinking grapple at all? Are Grapple Checks (or Combat Maneuver Checks in general) subject to the blink mischances? If so does that mean the blinker maintains his advantage (only suffering a 20% mischance vs the opponents 50%) is subsequent turns of a grapple?