_benno's page

Even if we say that they act as they would if alive, which is probably the best solution, even if not supported by the rules. There are more problems. Whats with there limited resources? Whats with their items are they still invested? Maybe just letting everything stay the same would be correct I don’t know. And so on…

I know it’s just from an adventure path but I find its a cool feat and its sad that its so unclear and was hoping there was some rules I overlooked.

_benno wrote:

shroudb wrote:

They act "as if they were alive" but slowed 1.

So, it really depends on whom you animate:
one of your party members? Then the player plays them.
on of the npcs? Then the GM plays them (if he were playing them prior to their death)

and etc

Now, if they are considered dead or alive, I'm going to go with "alive" due to 2 factors:
a) once again, like before, the spell specifically says that they are "as if they were alive".
b)when the spell ends, they specifically "die again", which seems to suggest that they are alive before dying to begin with. Else it should have probably said something along the lines of "they stop being animated".

Quote:

the bodies animate and can continue acting as if they were alive

For me that more reads like thats just a definition on what actions they can take(their abilities) not what they truly do.

but why?

if they act as if they were alive, they are going to be doing what they would do when they were alive.

you are not controlling them, there's nothing in the spell about controlling their actions, just that they act as if they were alive, including their knowledge, brains, morals, and motivations.

You are functionaly bringing them up from the dead, but only for a limited time.

But that is not what the feat says. The feat says that the bodies can act as if they were alive. The word can implies for me that it states a capability and nothing else.You always leave out that word. And if you do I agree with you. But thats simply not what the feat says.

They act "as if they were alive" but slowed 1.

So, it really depends on whom you animate:
one of your party members? Then the player plays them.
on of the npcs? Then the GM plays them (if he were playing them prior to their death)

and etc

Now, if they are considered dead or alive, I'm going to go with "alive" due to 2 factors:
a) once again, like before, the spell specifically says that they are "as if they were alive".
b)when the spell ends, they specifically "die again", which seems to suggest that they are alive before dying to begin with. Else it should have probably said something along the lines of "they stop being animated".

the bodies animate and can continue acting as if they were alive

For me that more reads like thats just a definition on what actions they can take(their abilities) not what they truly do.

Song of the Fallen can animate up to 4 bodies. Who controls them : the gm, the reviving player? And what is their attitude? The same they had in live? Or would they fight for the bard? Is there even a soul in the body since the body just animates (so is the animated body of a former friend really your friend or just their body with their abilities)? Are they undead or not?(for healing for example)

Eh. There's plenty of things which will still inflict conditions on you below your level. Unless you're only fighting solo bosses I'm pretty sure something will make you frightened, drained, enfeebled, clumsy, etc once a day. Keep in mind the feat is an action to use, so it can't really be used on Incapacitation effects where level would really matter.

How are 2-4 on level enemies considered solo boss monsters?

The determination feat states: If the effect comes from a creature, hazard, or item of 20th level or higher, Determination can't remove its effect on you.

So when you are at level 20 yourself (I know thats rare enough on its own xD), wouldn’t this feat become nearly useless?
Most creatures that pose a real threat to you are of 20th level or higher by then. So everything coming from them can’t be removed, can it?
Even low level spells from them (with a low counteract level) would still be of limits because they come from a high level creature. Do I read that correctly?

Benefits you gain specifically from a critical hit, like the flaming weapon rune’s persistent fire damage or the extra damage die from the fatal weapon trait, aren’t doubled.

It seams to me that it would be pointless and highly confusing to state that, if persistent damage should not be doubled as well on a crit.

When you target a square with two undetected creatures in it(one tiny) what happens?

When you target a square with two undetected creatures in it(one tiny) what happens?

You can always strike at an empty square though, maybe there is an undetected creature in it. Though that would raise your MAP.

Here is a discussion discussing something similar:
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43jjc?The-Time-Traveler-Background-and-how-it# 1

In Book of the Dead, undead characters brought down to Dying 4 are destroyed. So it seems implied that the PC is gone for good. But can they still be resurrected and returned to life by the ritual, so long as the spell's requirements are met (died within the past year), yes?

I think saying the PC is destroyed is a holdover from talking about bringing undead monsters and NPCs down to 0 hp, because doing so doesn't "kill" the undead creature. And resurrection requires "the target’s body to be present and relatively intact." This is up to GM interpretation, but I'd imagine that a destroyed (0 hit point) undead is "intact" enough for resurrection purposes.)

The skeleton feat rejuvenation toke implies that the pc would be brought back to live(if thats still possible) not unlive.

I think the general rule should be Shield Block can be used against a Strike with a physical item that deals physical damage.

A weapon or unarmed (capital S) Strike all usually fall in this category. The exceptions being incorporeal touch attacks (but they would usually do negative damage) or something like an Elemental that does Fire damage instead of Bludgeoning. This helps to clarify most of the corner cases too.

CS on Trip doesn't count because it is an athletics check not a Strike.

I would say no to SB for Trample because it allows for a Reflex save.
While Swallow Whole is an attack action, it is not a Strike, so again it doesn't count.

You can't use SB for spell attack rolls, because that is not a strike, so it doesn't work against Telekinetic Projectile or similar spells.

I think this definition is cleaner, it has less corner cases and it still preserves the RAI and flavor of Shield Block, i.e. I can use my shield to absorb some of the damage from the blow.

From where do you take that it has to be a strike?

An indication that it has to be physical damage gives the Reflexive Shield feat:

You can use your shield to fend off the worst of area effects and other damage. When you Raise your Shield, you gain your shield's circumstance bonus to Reflex saves. If you have the Shield Block reaction, damage you take as a result of a Reflex save can trigger that reaction, even if the damage isn't physical damage.[\QUOTE]

I remember a suggestion about a possibly lower dc for repairing items that you have crafted yourself in the rules.
I spend like the last hour searching for it, but was not able to find it. Just some post on reddit speaking about it.
What I found was this for crafting:

When a character Crafts an item, use the item’s level to determine the DC, applying the adjustments from Table 10–6 for the item’s rarity if it’s not common. You might also apply the easy DC adjustment for an item the crafter has made before.

Am I imagining things and there is nothing else?

Another question came up regarding the state of visibility of the targets of Chain Lightning. The description says that the caster requires line of effect to all the targets of the spell. To me that seems to indicate that it is irrelevant if a target is concealed or currently under the effect of the spell Mirror Image or even Invisibility (as long as the recipient is only hidden and not undetected).

a) Concealment would therefore have no effect at all on Chain Lightning. Only the caster, a critical Reflex Save or a very solid barrier blocking line of effect can stop the spell?

b) Chain Lightning would fail if affected by the miss chance provided from concealment?

c) A target that is under the effect of concealment wouldn't be affected by Chain Lightning if the miss chance afforded through concealment applied and the lightning would just continue arcing to the next target?

Which conclusion is correct?

a) is wrong, because it does not matter if the effect states that you have to have line of sight to the target.

A creature that you're concealed from must succeed at a DC 5 flat check when targeting you with an attack, spell, or other effect.

Concealed should be the same as hidden:

...and it must succeed at a DC 11 flat check when targeting you with an attack, spell, or other effect or it fails to affect you.

I think it might be the fairest thing to just let the creature roll a reflex save anyway with the only effect that the spell stops at a crit success.

I'd say, yes. In order to be wielding a gauntlet as a weapon you must be able to use it as a weapon.

CRB, p. 272 wrote:

Wielding Items

Some abilities require you to wield an item, typically a weapon. You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively. When wielding an item, you’re not just carrying it around—you’re ready to use it. Other abilities might require you to be wearing the item, to be holding it, or simply to have it.

But the free-hand trait tells us that you can't use a gauntlet as a weapon if you are holding anything in it.

CRB, p. 282 wrote:

You can't attack with a free-hand weapon if you're wielding anything in that hand or otherwise using that hand.

When you are making the strike you are wielding the sword in the gauntleted hand and so aren't capable of attacking with the gauntlet. If you can't attack with the gauntlet then you aren't wielding it, and the rings shut off.

Your logic is flawed here. It's clear that it says that you wield anything you hold in the necessary number of hands.

For example, a weapon with the Fire trait from a Flaming rune means the entire weapon doesn't work underwater, even though the Fire trait is brought on by a mere 1D6 Fire damage (with Persistent 1D10 on a Critical), and not from the actual weapon's damage being entirely of Fire damage.

Are you sure about that? As far as I know you are only unable to use spells and actions with the fire trait, not items. And the strike action does not get the fire trait even if the weapon has the fire trait, does it?

For example, we know Status bonuses to damage are only applied once per Strike, whatever the number of different additional damage you have. It's mostly based on prior implementations of the rules (PF1, DD3) and the fact that people continued to apply the same rule.

That are different systems, even if they are related. I for example know nothing about them since I played neither 1e nor 3.5. But since 2e is a standalone system it should be possible to play them just with the rules of 2e without knowing 1e or 3.5.

_benno wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

I have never said that your interpretation of RAW was not RAW. I said it was not the rule.

Consider me confused. What do you mean by 'the rule'? How people play it? I can't argue with that since I myself stated in an earlier post that I would not play it that way.

We have information about the rules that doesn't come from the text. For example, we know Status bonuses to damage are only applied once per Strike, whatever the number of different additional damage you have. It's mostly based on prior implementations of the rules (PF1, DD3) and the fact that people continued to apply the same rule. But I fully agree with you that by strict RAW you can challenge this rule by doing what you do: Applying Status bonus to damage to the main damage and to each additional damage. But we know it's not the rule, even if it could be RAW.

So, what I mean is: If your interpretation of RAW is a rule that noone will apply, or wants to apply, or if it breaks the game, then this is a wrong rule. You have to acknowledge that sometimes RAW is not enough, and RAI and even "the rules" are concepts that can challenge RAW.

Based on this information, my stand is (and I think it's a common stand): Additional damage is not properly defined by RAW.
That's why I brought a complex analysis of additional damage that is not solely based on the text. And my goal is to come up with a consistent ruling that satisfies the most basic cases. Which is not easy.

Also, when you say "It's RAW" and at the same time "I don't play it that way", you state there's an issue that can't be solved by just "It's RAW".
I personally find your ruling inconsistent. You apply one rule to Searing Light and another one to the Barbarian Strike (while acknowledging that you shouldn't). That's why I don't find it satisfying.

You must have misunderstood me somewhere. I would play both as just apply it once. I thought I wrote that. I just stated that I think that by RAW it would be different then I would play it.

I have never said that your interpretation of RAW was not RAW. I said it was not the rule.

Consider me confused. What do you mean by 'the rule'? How people play it? I can't argue with that since I myself stated in an earlier post that I would not play it that way.

_benno wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Sure, I can't say it's RAW, but I think it's a solid analysis of additional damage.

You say yourself that what you state is NOT RAW. Mine is. So please find a flaw in what I said or find something in the rules that support your point.

SuperBidi wrote:

It's not written specifically in the rules, but everyone applies this rule.

That is not how RAW works.

Could you explain me RAW, please?

Your rule is wrong. Not as in "not RAW" but as in "not the rule". So, sure, you can apply bonus to damage 7 times per Strike because the guy is using a Frost, Flaming, Shocking Shortsword with Rage, Sneak Attack and Weapon Specialization but it's just not the rule. And if you manage to find a RAW interpretation that leads to this rule, then I can tell you: Your interpretation is wrong.

Rules as written, is exactly what it says. And no just because something does not seam right to you, that does not mean it is not RAW. The rules where written by human beings so it is pretty natural that they might have overlooked things(problems) or even made mistakes.

Lets take a law system where there is no law against stealing. We might all agree that stealing is forbidden but if there is a law stating you may take what you need it would be ok to steal if you needed what you took. Now tell me how was the theft forbidden by the rules or allowed, if you needed what you stole? Same principle.

Jared Walter 356 wrote:

_benno wrote:

Therefore Fire and Good can NOT be from the same damage roll. So RAW is pretty clear: you apply the bonus to each of them.

This is flawed logic. The rules for resistances indicate that it can be of multiple types in the same instant of damage:

CR453:
If you have more than one type of resistance that would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable resistance value.

It’s possible to have resistance to all damage. When an effect deals damage of multiple types and you have resistance to all damage, apply the resistance to each type of damage separately. If an attack would deal 7 slashing damage and 4 fire damage, resistance 5 to all damage would reduce the slashing damage to 2 and negate the fire damage entirely.

It seams my answer to this has vanished.

No what you quoted does not indicate that and you yourself give the perfect example to it.
Lets say you have resistance 5 to all and resistance 10 to cold. Your quote simply states that then you just use the highest of them (resistance 10), nothing else. Or do you want to say that all is a separate damage type?

Or do you mean the second part? They speak about an effect. And you are correct. An effect can deal multiple types of damage. But an effect might have multiple instances of damage as well.

_benno wrote:

Therefore Fire and Good can NOT be from the same damage roll. So RAW is pretty clear: you apply the bonus to each of them.

This is flawed logic. The rules for resistances indicate that it can be of multiple types in the same instant of damage:

CR453:
If you have more than one type of resistance that would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable resistance value.

It’s possible to have resistance to all damage. When an effect deals damage of multiple types and you have resistance to all damage, apply the resistance to each type of damage separately. If an attack would deal 7 slashing damage and 4 fire damage, resistance 5 to all damage would reduce the slashing damage to 2 and negate the fire damage entirely.

It seams my answer to this has vanished.

No what you quoted does not indicate that and you yourself give the perfect example to it.
Lets say you have resistance 5 to all and resistance 10 to cold. Your quote simply states that then you just use the highest of them (resistance 10), nothing else. Or do you want to say that all is a separate damage type?

Sure, I can't say it's RAW, but I think it's a solid analysis of additional damage.

You say yourself that what you state is NOT RAW. Mine is. So please find a flaw in what I said or find something in the rules that support your point.

It's not written specifically in the rules, but everyone applies this rule.

That is not how RAW works.

_benno wrote:

Therefore Fire and Good can NOT be from the same damage roll. So RAW is pretty clear: you apply the bonus to each of them.

This is flawed logic. The rules for resistances indicate that it can be of multiple types in the same instant of damage:

CR453:
If you have more than one type of resistance that would apply to the same instance of damage, use only the highest applicable resistance value.

It’s possible to have resistance to all damage. When an effect deals damage of multiple types and you have resistance to all damage, apply the resistance to each type of damage separately. If an attack would deal 7 slashing damage and 4 fire damage, resistance 5 to all damage would reduce the slashing damage to 2 and negate the fire damage entirely.

No it doesn't and you already give the perfect example. Let's say you have resistance 5 to all damage and resistance 10 to cold. Than you don't add them together. That's all that your quote states. Or do you want to say that all is a damage type??

There's no RAW around additional damage. Hence the whole discussion. Luckily, there's a lot of RAI we can use.

In my oppinion there is. Let's look at the rules for damage.

As with checks, you might add circumstance, status, or item bonuses to your damage rolls, but if you have multiple bonuses of the same type, you add only the highest bonus of that type.

Then we go to step 2: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=340. Here the damage type (not types) is determined.

Once you’ve calculated how much damage you deal, you’ll need to determine the damage type.

Therefore Fire and Good can NOT be from the same damage roll. So RAW is pretty clear: you apply the bonus to each of them.

If a Dragon Barbarian with a Flaming sword is under Inspire Courage, do you add the damage bonus 3 times? I don't think so. So, I highly disagree with you, the bonus must be added only to the Fire damage, as it's the base damage of the spell.

RAW, yes I think that's the way it would work.

_benno wrote:

I think RAW you would add the bonus to the 5d6 fire damage AND the 5d6 positive damage. Since they are of different types they have to be separate instances of damage, both benefiting from the bonus.

The classical spell doing that is Searing Light. Searing Light does 5d6 Fire damage and 5d6 extra positive/good damage. Other instances of "extra" damage are elemental runes, rage and weapon specialization for example. If a Dragon Barbarian with a Flaming sword is under Inspire Courage, do you add the damage bonus 3 times? I don't think so. So, I highly disagree with you, the bonus must be added only to the Fire damage, as it's the base damage of the spell.

The extra damage rule seams a bit arbitrary to me though. Whats with Cataclysm for example? What is the 'main damage' and what is the 'extra damage' there? And why is the roll for rolling 'extra damage' no damage roll?

I wouldn't run it that way, but it sounds like thats what would be raw.

I think RAW you would add the bonus to the 5d6 fire damage AND the 5d6 positive damage. Since they are of different types they have to be separate instances of damage, both benefiting from the bonus.

Make it one feat there are some other focus spell feats you can take to get out of the archetype. That way you gain at least something for the second feat.

Even a +2 per weapon die seems too much.

I think you are overestimating bonuses to damage a bit to much.

Thats a brutal finish for a d6 weapon on full multiple attack penalty which no one would use this way.
You better use a kama (the only agile monk d6 weapon that is not advanced) otherwise thats -4 to damage already.

Yeah, thought so. But I was surprised when I read the feat more attentively yesterday and realized it does not add a spell.

I guess it went from 'good' category to 'very situational' for me. I am really not sure I want any spell so much I want to spend 8 lvl feat on it. Even having occult spell list.

Depends on your spell list. Something like slow is worth it in my opinion.

No it does not add a spell to your repertoire

Allowing this at the normal Ref DC is not, IMO, a great idea, first, this is by RAW mechanically impossible to do.

You are perfectly right. I did not realize that a redcap is a creature. I thought it some kind of mundane clothing I did not know xD

Precious materials are not a damage type, nor is magic.

I am aware of that. But since it is listed under damage types I excluded it non the less.

Here the damage is good and silver and magical and slashing.

This made it sound like you were speaking about damage that is both good AND slashing.

Why? Because multiple properties do exist for damage types - example a holy silver sword. Here the damage is good and silver and magical and slashing. So in the Moonlight case while the damage can be silver, it never stops being cold. It would have to explicitly remove cold to do that - and it does not.

There is no "instead", stop inserting it as you read.

The attack deals slashing damage AND good damage. But they are still separate! Magical is a trait not a damage type and silver follows the special rules for Precious Materials. I'm not aware of anything that deals damage with 2 damage types (except Precious Materials and Precision) like for example slashing and cold.

That doesn't change that silver follows the rules for Precious Materials and therefore the attack deals silver cold damage.

_benno wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

And the spell asks for 3 actions so you can't use the Metamagic feat anyway. And even if duration is not stated, it's hard to consider it a spell without a duration. So 3 reasons for no.

There are feats like quickend spell or Metamagic Mastery.

The typical understanding of how Metamagic works is that you can only apply one of them to a spell because of the restrictions written into metamagic. Since the metamagic is itself an action - even if it is a free action - then you can't chain two of them together to both act on the same spell later in the turn. The restriction is that the next action is Cast a Spell. If instead the next action is another metamagic action, then the first metamagic action is invalid because a metamagic action is not Cast a Spell.

Can't say I like that rule but you seem to be right. Even free actions are not allowed. But Metamagic Mastery should still work.

Athletics or acrobatics against their reflex DC I'd suggest.

And the spell asks for 3 actions so you can't use the Metamagic feat anyway. And even if duration is not stated, it's hard to consider it a spell without a duration. So 3 reasons for no.

There are feats like quickend spell or Metamagic Mastery.

A 'stall' descent exploit seems like a much smaller exploit than most PCs are going to try and use. If it does become a problem, maybe require a free action acrobatics check to recover from the stall/fall before they can use a fly action. Not sure what DC to use for that though.

Its pretty logical though. If you are flying higher you will have much more time to react. I don't think this is an exploit at all.

Not sure how your fighter with one spellstrike a battle is doing better than a magus. Doubt that happens in the campaign I'm in. My magus player is very good at quickly getting into Arcane Stance, getting temp hps, extra damage, and recharging spellstrike.

You are right that the magus archetype spell strike is a thing for one round each combat and can therefore not be your 'standard' combat round. But with true strike and maybe a fitting focus spell this one time thing can be a significant damage boost (especially if you are a fighter with +2 to hit).

And even something like ranking classes on expected damage per round would be a problem because that depends a lot on what else you have to do in a practical round. A theoretical maximum is only a good measurement if you are attacking inanimate target dummies.

Correct, something as simple as an enemy moving away from you with a high movement speed might reduce the damage of a slow character to 0 while a faster character is might get to the enemy and still have actions left. And what about a ranged character. Then we are again at the discussion how valuable is range. I thing its pretty much impossible to make an absolute ranking, especially when comparing different play stiles. It might be possible for to characters with exactly the same play stile to and least somewhat compare them. For example a barbarian with a two handed weapon to a fighter with a two handed weapon (my bets are on the fighter xD). But im almost certain that even that needs a few assumptions made beforehand.

Like the others here said, it is very difficult to rank the classes, because there are so many different builds you can make. Even if you just consider damage its still hard. What AC are your enemies, do they have resistances/weaknesses.
For example take a flurry ranger, that makes many attacks for lower damage. Weakness and resistances can be a game changer here. On the other hand you have to consider that it entices you to make more attacks and therefore forgo doing other thing (for example Demoralize) which might be even better then a little damage.
And how do you for example value a spell caster casting Heroism on the Fighter in damage?

That being said I might be able to give you a few of my opinions on the balance of the classes:
Generally martial classes do more single target damage then casters and have better defenses then casters. On the other hand they can't adapt to different enemies as well as casters(weaknesses/resistances/low saves). Furthermore casters have a much easier time buffing the teammates up and healing them if necessary. Also casters are better against a large amount of low leveled creatures.

For skill monkeys the investigator and the rogue are the best options since they get double the skill increases of other classes.

Specific builds might change all of that though, so take it with a grain of salt.

SuperBidi wrote:

The reason why thrown melee weapons need to be Agile or Finesse is because non-Agile or Finesse thrown melee weapons get higher dice.

The ones that I have seen do 1d6 instead of 1d4. Are you seeing other non-agile, non-finesse melee weapons with the thrown trait that have higher base damage when thrown?

I'm not sure that 1 point per damage die is much of a consideration for balance reasons. Especially on weapons that add your STR mod to their damage rolls.

Being able to Sneak Attack with a weapon that also possibly does persistent damage, splash damage, or applies conditions would be more of a consideration. And don't some of the bombs also have 1d6 as their base initial damage?

The Axe of the Dwarven Lords or the Spear of the Destroyer's Flame for example xD

graystone wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

there is no way to be sure without errata, so don't expect consensus.

LOL Good luck with errata, as they usually only errata hardbacks when they're reprinted :P

Yes. I am aware of that.

_benno wrote:

The bomb has the fire trait so it deals fire damage. But the amount of damage is 0.

A couple problems I have with this:

* The Fire trait does not necessarily mean that something deals fire damage.
* It would get the Fire trait because of dealing damage just from dealing the persistent fire damage. The Acid Flask has the Acid trait without dealing any initial acid damage. So it doesn't necessarily deal 0 Fire damage as a base damage.

Yes you are right. The argumentation is not entirely waterproof. But splash damage is not a damage type so I am almost certain that RAW the precision damage is not added to the splash damage.

I think in this case it is still pretty easy to decide what the most logical ruling is. But when it comes to a Tanglefoot Bag for example I have no clue what happens.

The bomb has the fire trait so it deals fire damage. But the amount of damage is 0. Now you just add the precision damage to 0.

_benno wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

_benno wrote:

If I have a creature grabbed and for example through crit spec gain the ability to move them 5 feet, do I have to make a check against myself to move them?

Keep in mind that a critical specialization can be applied or not ( player's choice ).

Why wouldn't I apply it. Worst thing I fail the check against myself and the creature doesn't move. Best thing I succeeded and get what I wanted. In both cases the creature is still grabbed afterwards.

Not saying that you always would do so, but that, depends the situation, you might prefer not to.

For example, your ally grappled/restrained the enemy spellcaster, and now you critically hit ( let's take the greatclub example I made before ) with a greatclub which can shove on a critical hit ( forced movement ).

Now, knowing that the spellcaster would go after you, you could prefer giving a flat DC on spellcasting rather than shoving it.

Same goes realizing that your ally would have to stride ( expending 1 action ) to be again within the spellcaster reach.

When possibilities are given, opportunities appear.

Yes you are correct that in general there might be cases in which I would not want to apply the crit spec. But the point of my question was that I want to move them, crit spec was just an example for an ability that would give you the opportunity. And in this case there is no reason for me to not attempt it.

- Grapple says "Your target is grabbed until the end of your next turn unless you move or your target Escapes".

I know that rule. But I never wanted to move myself to begin with.

_benno wrote:

If I have a creature grabbed and for example through crit spec gain the ability to move them 5 feet, do I have to make a check against myself to move them?

Keep in mind that a critical specialization can be applied or not ( player's choice ).

Why wouldn't I apply it. Worst thing I fail the check against myself and the creature doesn't move. Best thing I succeeded and get what I wanted. In both cases the creature is still grabbed afterwards.