| 18 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Copied from the "know about pathfinder" thread. This has been discussed before, but I personally would really love an official rule.
Grapple is still impossible to play without house ruling something. They say the grappler (and the grapplee) takes a -4 penalty to AC. Went to great pains, it seems, to remove the fact that grappling gives you an automatic sneak attack target. However, the Armor Class Modifiers table on page 195 of the Core Rulebook has a footnote on Grappling. That says that you lose your Dex bonus to AC. Which in fact means that you are still vulnerable to sneak attack.
So... which is it? According to the rulebook I have, if I use every rule in it as faithfully as possible, grappled, and grappling characters both still lose their Dex bonus to AC (and are sneak-attackable). However, the only place I can still find this information is in a footnote in a table I never would have thought to look at after reading all the grapple information. It is not listed in the 2 pages on grapple (except for pinning a target, which, stupidly, makes the PINNER lose his dex bonus). It is not listed in the "grappled" condition in the condition summaries at the end of the book.
Further complicating matters, the table on page 195 again states for pinned targets that they are flat-footed (which is a different footnote than simply losing their Dex bonus to AC) WRT melee and ranged attacks, which also isn't mentioned in the text. Pinned in the text is doubly broken, because it says it's a more severe form of grapple, then it says the pinned target suffers an additional -4 penalty to Dex, then it says that grappled and pinned condition modifiers don't stack. Wait... what?
Summary? This needs errata. Either remove those footnotes from the grappled and pinned entries on the table, or add those effects to the text.
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So, wait, a grappled creature is not flat-footed? Damn, been playing it wrong all along...crap. My player's are going to be happy.
Grappled creatures are not flat-footed in SRD/D&D nor in PF. In SRD/D&D, they lose their Dex bonus to creatures outside the grapple, but aren't flat footed. In PF, there is a footnote that says that they lose Dex to AC, but that is not reflected in the text. The result is that the footnote is sometimes seen as an artifact of the writing process that took us from the SRD to PF.
While many use the term flat-footed to mean the same thing as being denied Dex bonus to AC, they aren't the same thing, and the distinction can be important.
I feel like I understand the grappling rules well enough to get by except that the groups I play in can't come to any conclusive decisions about casting spells with somatic components while grappled (or grappling, since there might be a significant semantic difference...or not). I feel like Paizo intended to let you cast spells while grappled so that getting grappled wouldn't be a death sentence (or perhaps worse a boredom sentence) like it often was in 3.5. The rules are unclear at best and possibly contradictory though.
Some other minor stuff comes up from time to time, such as whether or not the free attacks from the Rake ability can actually be used. Stuff like that is usually a minor point unless somebody is playing a grapple centric PC, but whether or not you can use somatic components in a grapple can be a complete game changer in many campaigns.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grappled: -4 penalty to DEX. Everything that uses DEX is going to be 2 lower. Lose DEX bonus to AC against anyone attacking that is not grappling.
Pinnned: Pinned is flat-footed...to everybody, including grappler. As well as a -4 penalty to AC.
You can sneak attack someone who is grappling another. You can sneak attack someone YOU are pinning. You cannot sneak attack someone you are grappling but not pinning. Seems clear to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The d20pfsrd has a spreadsheet explaining this. Here it is.
The d20pfsrd has a spreadsheet explaining this. Here it is.
The spreadsheet recently had errors on it. Did anyone fix them?
|
|
Grappled: -4 penalty to DEX. Everything that uses DEX is going to be 2 lower. Lose DEX bonus to AC against anyone attacking that is not grappling.
Pinnned: Pinned is flat-footed...to everybody, including grappler. As well as a -4 penalty to AC.
You can sneak attack someone who is grappling another. You can sneak attack someone YOU are pinning. You cannot sneak attack someone you are grappling but not pinning. Seems clear to me.
Glad it is clear to you. The text at question is what is bolded above. It comes from the footnote 1 in the table referenced by OP. It is contradicted, at least by implication, by the action to pin an opponent, which reads: "Pin: You can give your opponent the pinned condition (see Conditions). Despite pinning your opponent, you still only have the grappled condition, [b]but you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC.[b]"
So, it is clear to you that if you are grappled, you lose Dex bonus to AC to anyone outside the grapple, but if you pin someone, you are only grappled, with the addition, "...but you lose your Dex bonus to AC." Since you were grappled before pinning, in your clear view, you lose your Dex bonus to AC to those outside the grapple, but now that you are pinning, you have the same grappled condition, but gain a condition (loss of Dex bonus to AC) that you already had, but it is extended to those inside the grapple as well?
Grappled: -4 penalty to DEX. Everything that uses DEX is going to be 2 lower. Lose DEX bonus to AC against anyone attacking that is not grappling.
Pinnned: Pinned is flat-footed...to everybody, including grappler. As well as a -4 penalty to AC.
You can sneak attack someone who is grappling another. You can sneak attack someone YOU are pinning. You cannot sneak attack someone you are grappling but not pinning. Seems clear to me.
Glad it is clear to you. The text at question is what is bolded above. It comes from the footnote 1 in the table referenced by OP. It is contradicted, at least by implication, by the action to pin an opponent, which reads: "Pin: You can give your opponent the pinned condition (see Conditions). Despite pinning your opponent, you still only have the grappled condition, but you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC."
So, it is clear to you that if you are grappled, you lose Dex bonus to AC to anyone outside the grapple, but if you pin someone, you are only grappled, with the addition, "...but you lose your Dex bonus to AC." Since you were grappled before pinning, in your clear view, you lose your Dex bonus to AC to those outside the grapple, but now that you are pinning, you have the same grappled condition, but gain a condition (loss of Dex bonus to AC) that you already had, but it is extended to those inside the grapple as well?
Yes. That is what it says. I'm actually reading through the PRD right now because I feel that it might affect grapples with more than 2 parties involved (which isn't a situation that has come up nearly often enough for me to bother remembering the rules of).
|
|
Grappled: -4 penalty to DEX. Everything that uses DEX is going to be 2 lower. Lose DEX bonus to AC against anyone attacking that is not grappling.
Pinnned: Pinned is flat-footed...to everybody, including grappler. As well as a -4 penalty to AC.
You can sneak attack someone who is grappling another. You can sneak attack someone YOU are pinning. You cannot sneak attack someone you are grappling but not pinning. Seems clear to me.
Glad it is clear to you. The text at question is what is bolded above. It comes from the footnote 1 in the table referenced by OP. It is contradicted, at least by implication, by the action to pin an opponent, which reads: "Pin: You can give your opponent the pinned condition (see Conditions). Despite pinning your opponent, you still only have the grappled condition, [b]but you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC.[b]"
So, it is clear to you that if you are grappled, you lose Dex bonus to AC to anyone outside the grapple, but if you pin someone, you are only grappled, with the addition, "...but you lose your Dex bonus to AC." Since you were grappled before pinning, in your clear view, you lose your Dex bonus to AC to those outside the grapple, but now that you are pinning, you have the same grappled condition, but gain a condition (loss of Dex bonus to AC) that you already had, but it is extended to those inside the grapple as well?
Only the defender has the (lose DEX to AC) before the pin
During the pin ther attacker gains that as well.
Grappled: -4 penalty to DEX. Everything that uses DEX is going to be 2 lower. Lose DEX bonus to AC against anyone attacking that is not grappling.
Pinnned: Pinned is flat-footed...to everybody, including grappler. As well as a -4 penalty to AC.
You can sneak attack someone who is grappling another. You can sneak attack someone YOU are pinning. You cannot sneak attack someone you are grappling but not pinning. Seems clear to me.
Glad it is clear to you. The text at question is what is bolded above. It comes from the footnote 1 in the table referenced by OP. It is contradicted, at least by implication, by the action to pin an opponent, which reads: "Pin: You can give your opponent the pinned condition (see Conditions). Despite pinning your opponent, you still only have the grappled condition, [b]but you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC.[b]"
So, it is clear to you that if you are grappled, you lose Dex bonus to AC to anyone outside the grapple, but if you pin someone, you are only grappled, with the addition, "...but you lose your Dex bonus to AC." Since you were grappled before pinning, in your clear view, you lose your Dex bonus to AC to those outside the grapple, but now that you are pinning, you have the same grappled condition, but gain a condition (loss of Dex bonus to AC) that you already had, but it is extended to those inside the grapple as well?
Only the defender has the (lose DEX to AC) before the pin
After the pin ther attacker gains that as well.
I had always read the chart as 'defender' refering to the person being attacked. Not as the defender of the grapple.
|
|
I had always read the chart as 'defender' refering to the person being attacked. Not as the defender of the grapple.e as well?Only the defender has the (lose DEX to AC) before the pin
After the pin ther attacker gains that as well.
That is my reading of it as well, assuming the footnote isn't an oops.
It doesn't say anywhere that you loose dex bonus to AC in the prd or the core rulebook i have.
Hama, see footnote 1 to table 8-6 on page 195 of the core rulebook. Or, search "Table: Armor Class Modifiers" in the prd combat section.
And if they did, then what is the purpose of a -4 penalty to dex? You loose your dex bonus anyway...
Dex does more than provide a bonus to AC. It affects skills (including escape artist), Reflex saves, ranged attacks (if you have a way of getting off a ranged attack), and could result in a penalty to AC in addition to losing the Dex bonus. The Dex bonus to AC is bonus to AC and is a flag for sneak attack.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Besides this problem, the elephant in the room is that the rules seem to be written as if it was below them to actually call out ´controller´ and ´controlled´ sub-conditions, even though they functionaly correspond to such a distinction. The lack of such wording makes it doubly hard for people to discuss the grapple rules, and this same difficulty more or less applies to people trying to understand the rules by them-selves... People´s natural instinct is to have names for things, but the Grapple rules irrationally avoid that, in favor of utter dependence on sequential prose (helpfully split into multiple sections of the book).
Also, all the ´in place of melee attack´ maneuvers aren´t clear what that phrase means (it´s actually only defined in a sub-text of the Actions in Combat table, which somebody reading the CMB rules isn´t going to think to look for). Bull-rush has a wierd wording, such that it has the ´in place of melee attack´ wording ONLY AS PART OF A CHARGE, so apparently (by RAW) you can use weapons (and bonuses) to deliver Bull Rushes, but not if you don´t take the Charge action.
Also affecting Bull-Rush, and other Manuvers not delivered by another weapon (like Grapple), is that because these are not normal weapons, it isn´t actually stated that they are subject to the attacker´s normal threat area... You don´t actually threaten with Grapple or BR, nor can make AoO´s (in normal rules), so the maneuvers themselves seem like they need to specify that they use natural reach. I noticed this when looking at the Stand Still Feat/Maneuver, which is apparently dependent on the use threatening adjacent squares with other means, e.g. Stand Still is delivered by that means.
The grappled condition doesn't give you a -4 penalty to AC, it gives you a -4 penalty to Dexterity. That's something entirely different.
You are correct. I misspoke. I know that and I know it's different. The rest of the question still stands, however. I apologize for the confusion.
The d20pfsrd has a spreadsheet explaining this. Here it is.
Those are some pretty cool flow charts. I might even use them. Are they "official" though? I mean, I could put together a flow chart showing how I say Grapple works, but my friend who disagrees would probably ask, "Where did you get that from?" I suspect that saying, "Some random guy on the Internet made it up" would be just a shade better than having made it up myself.
Judging by the huge number of grapple questions which pop up on these boards and others I can't imagine that my playing groups are the only ones which have disagreements about how grapple is supposed to work. Actually, the idea just struck me that maybe the reason the designers don't seem eager to provide a lot of official guidance is because they don't all agree about how Grapple works either.
|
|
The following occurred in today's play session: my halfling paladin was blinded in combat for several rounds by acid from a gibbering mouther -- which also eagerly desired to swallow whole the smaller creature. Another party member (human) attempted to prevent this by picking me up and "hugging me", which led all sorts of weird counter-grapples and rules checking.
Copied from the "know about pathfinder" thread. This has been discussed before, but I personally would really love an official rule.
Grapple is still impossible to play without house ruling something. They say the grappler (and the grapplee) takes a -4 penalty to AC. Went to great pains, it seems, to remove the fact that grappling gives you an automatic sneak attack target. However, the Armor Class Modifiers table on page 195 of the Core Rulebook has a footnote on Grappling. That says that you lose your Dex bonus to AC. Which in fact means that you are still vulnerable to sneak attack.
So... which is it? According to the rulebook I have, if I use every rule in it as faithfully as possible, grappled, and grappling characters both still lose their Dex bonus to AC (and are sneak-attackable). However, the only place I can still find this information is in a footnote in a table I never would have thought to look at after reading all the grapple information. It is not listed in the 2 pages on grapple (except for pinning a target, which, stupidly, makes the PINNER lose his dex bonus). It is not listed in the "grappled" condition in the condition summaries at the end of the book.
Further complicating matters, the table on page 195 again states for pinned targets that they are flat-footed (which is a different footnote than simply losing their Dex bonus to AC) WRT melee and ranged attacks, which also isn't mentioned in the text. Pinned in the text is doubly broken, because it says it's a more severe form of grapple, then it says the pinned target suffers an additional -4 penalty to Dex, then it says that grappled and pinned condition modifiers don't stack. Wait... what?
Summary? This needs errata. Either remove those footnotes from the grappled and pinned entries on the table, or add those effects to the text.
Why didn't they put the loss of dexterity when attacked in the grapple description. Why a footnote. Sheesh.
Only the defender has the (lose DEX to AC) before the pin
During the pin ther attacker gains that as well.
This is the problem: That is not reflected in the RAW for Pathfinder.
Grapple begins on page 199 and goes for two pages. There is nothing in those two pages about losing your DEX bonus to AC whether you are the grappler or the grappled. There is this:
If successful, both you and the target gain the grappled condition (see the Appendices).
Grappled: A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler’s CMB + spell level, see page 206), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.
A grappled creature cannot use Stealth to hide from the creature grappling it, even if a special ability, such as hide in plain sight, would normally allow it to do so. If a grappled creature becomes invisible, through a spell or other ability, it gains a +2 circumstance bonus on its CMD to avoid being grappled, but receives no other benefit.
There isn't a single word in there about losing your DEX bonus to AC. The ONLY mention of losing your DEX bonus for anything other than pinning someone is in a footnote on the table on page 195, which states that for targets that are grappling (this term is undefined in the rules - but let us assume it means grappled, which applies to both grappler and grapplee) there is a +0 modifier to the target's AC against both ranged and melee attacks. Since the table's wording is "grappling (but the attacker isn't)" then the only way to be the attack and not to be grappling is not to be involved in the grapple at all. The footnote states that the defender is denied his Dex bonus to AC for anyone attacking who is not himself grappled.
Assuming the table is correct, why is this not reflected in the rules on grapple or the grappled condition? If the table is incorrect, can we get that footnote removed? As it is, GMs have to decide if the footnote is a legacy holdover or if the text is omitted from the condition description for some other reason.
For comparison, the Player's Handbook for 3.5 edition D&D states:
No Dexterity Bonus: You lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if you have one) against opponents you aren’t grappling. (You can still use it against opponents you are grappling.)
Explicitly stated. Now, if it's there in 3.5 but conspicuously absent from Pathfinder, that makes me think that the design intention was to remove that aspect of grappling from the game. However, the fact that it's still in the table means this isn't going to be settled without an errata. Either add it to the text or remove it from the table.
Explicitly stated. Now, if it's there in 3.5 but conspicuously absent from Pathfinder, that makes me think that the design intention was to remove that aspect of grappling from the game. However, the fact that it's still in the table means this isn't going to be settled without an errata. Either add it to the text or remove it from the table.
Couldn't just as easily be said that due to size constraints and word count it was not spelled out a second time as it was already stated earlier/someplace else (like the table) and because of the situational use (meaning that the attacker isn't part of the grapple they are targeting into, and has no reason to look at the grapple rules) the table was a better place to place it (the place with all the other modifiers)?
People´s natural instinct is to have names for things, but the Grapple rules irrationally avoid that, in favor of utter dependence on sequential prose (helpfully split into multiple sections of the book).
Your surreptititious shot there at the end is something I feel constantly about the current rules format.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would invoke the rule that full text takes precedence over table text, and say that the table is wrong. And that makes everything simple. But it does need errata.
|
I would invoke the rule that full text takes precedence over table text, and say that the table is wrong. And that makes everything simple. But it does need errata.
In general I agree with this, however it has been pointed out that the two are not mutually exclusive. You can have just -4 dex against people involved in the grapple and loose your dex to everyone else.
But I do think the text will trump. But once again ask for a little developer input into this, just as with the Defending Weapon thread.
|
This is pulled from another thread, but might help here too ...
I realize some of this has been covered, but it might help illustrate the point. (or it might just make it more confusing :) )
-------------------------------------------
Lets say player A grapples player B with player C nearby.
PLAYER A gets -4 Dex, -2 to attacks other than grapple/escape, and loses his dex to AC against player C, but not B. Can damage player B but cannot attack player C because of controlling grapple.
(CMB unchanged, CMD -2, Escape Skill -2 —due to lost dex)
PLAYER B gets -4 Dex, -2 to attacks other than grapple/escape, and loses his dex to AC against player C, but not A. Can still attack player A or C (with the -2), but neither is open to sneak attack.
(CMB unchanged, CMD -2, Escape Skill -2 —due to lost dex)
PLAYER C can attack A or B with both losing their dex to AC, both open to sneak attack.
--------------------------------------------
Now player A has player B pinned
PLAYER A same as above but loses his dex to AC to player B too. Can still damage player B, but can now add "sneak attack" to player B.
(CMB unchanged, CMD -2, Escape Skill -2)
PLAYER B is flat-footed to everyone, so loses his dex to AC to player A, and also has -4 to AC, and can no longer do anything other than grapple. No attacks directed towards B or C.
(CMB unchanged, CMD -4 and loses all positive dex mod*, -0 to Escape Skill**)
PLAYER C can attack A or B with both losing their dex to AC, both open to sneak attack. Player B has an additional -4 AC.
--------------------------------------------
The table on page 195 is for a defender who is grappling (players A or B) versus someone who is not (player C). Granted this needs to be errata'd if its not the intention.
*The big difference between being flat-footed v. losing dex to AC is that the CMD specifically says "A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to CMD". So players B's CMD can go down a lot once he is pinned (if he has a high dex) ... more than Player A doing the pinning. This is why they don't always say flat-footed.
** This is the one strange part, pinned condition allows for a better Escape check than grappling. This is because it is no longer -4 to dex. But remember that the Escape Skill turns a pin into a grapple (p96). A successful combat maneuver breaks the pin and the grapple at the same time (FAQ).
: A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. a grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.
A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions. A pinned creature cannot move and is flat-footed. A pinned character also takes an additional –4 penalty to his Armor Class. A pinned creature is limited in the actions that it can take. A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check. A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component. A pinned character who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level) or lose the spell. Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack.
If you are grappled, you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action by making a combat maneuver check (DC equal to your opponent's CMD; this does not provoke an attack of opportunity) or Escape Artist check (with a DC equal to your opponent's CMD). If you succeed, you break the grapple and can act normally. Alternatively, if you succeed, you can become the grappler, grappling the other creature (meaning that the other creature cannot freely release the grapple without making a combat maneuver check, while you can). Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you. See the grappled condition for additional details. If you are pinned, your actions are very limited. See the pinned condition in Conditions for additional details.
The point that has me a bit confused is this:
From the FAQ on the PFRD:
(Jason Bulmahn) There appears to be a little bit of incongruity in the wordings here. A pinned character is immobilized (hence uncanny dodge will not help). I will see that this is clarified. [Source]
Now, this is taken a bit out of context, but if a person is immobilized, doesn't that mean is DEX is 0 (-5) penalty?
---
The thing that is irritating me about grapple is that if you can hold it, it becomes easier to beat the opponents CMD, but since the person's CMB is never modified, it also means it is easier to break out of. Who cares if I end up getting a +7 on my CMB to make the hold if the person being grappled ultimately gets a +2 to CMB to break the hold.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It sounded like Maneuvers might be getting some more Errata/FAQ love soon,
so besides what I already posted here, I thought I`d clarify/re-post a few other issues...
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Grapple Condition says you can`t take any actions that require 2 Hands...
That should probably have a similar qualifier to the wording in the Grapple Maneuver itself for the penalty applicable to `Humanoid creatures without 2 hands free` starting a Grapple.
----------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned by others, it seems like at least a FAQ could clarify the ¨Pinned is more severe version of Grapple / Immobilized / Penalty to DEX / not stacking with Grapple penalties¨ relationship. I.e., people are suggesting there is no DEX penalty (i.e. you are at full DEX) while Pinned because it isn`t explicitly called out... Though if you look at what the Grappled/Pinned Conditions DIRECTLY say, there isn`t actually anything that COULD `stack`, i.e. modify the same value.
This is tied into the issue of Pinned counting as Helpless (DEX goes directly to ZERO), which isn`t made 100% clear (Helpless says `held` or `bound` qualify). To me, it`s clear enough that Pinned counts as Helpless, but if there`s an intended relationship between two explicit Conditions, it should be directly stated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Grapples move the target to an adjacent square when they are Initiated, but there isn`t any wording KEEPING the target there, or anything requiring that they STAY there in order for the Grapple to continue...
For an extreme case, either the Controller or Target of Grapple can Swift Dimension Door to maximum distance, but nothing suggests that the Condition is ended by anything except failure to Maintain it on the Controller`s next round.
Reasonably speaking, it seems plausible that the Target must remain within the Natural Reach of the Grapple Controller (if the Grapple is to continue), although nothing in RAW specifies this. If this was applied, it would mean that creatures taking the -20 option (or the Kraken who doesn`t need to) who AREN^T Grappled themselves and thus can Move, could after Grappling a Target, choose to Move up to their Reach, possibly putting themselves outside the target`s own Reach (and thus ability to take reprisals).
Alternatively, Grappled Condition could have wording `keeping` the Target adjacent to the Grappler (until the Grapple is broken), meaning Grapplers who don`t gain the Grappled Condition themselves (i.e. -20, Kraken) could Grapple/Grab a Target and Move away with the Target adjacent to them at the end of their movement (and able to use their full remaining movement, not just up to their Reach, etc). ...This option runs into the next issue:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Grappled Condition says `Grappled creatures cannot move`, which has some ambiguity as to whether it means they can`t move themselves, or they can`t be moved by any force whatsoever. Compare to the stronger form of the Entangled Condition, which says (paraphrased) `Being entangled entirely prevents movement`, which more clearly applies to ALL movement, not just self-initiated movement.
This has implications for things like Bullrush, as well as spells or anything else which move the target. Of course it would seem bizarre if a Titan could not, even with a Truestrike effect, be able to Bullrush one of a pair of Grappling Pixies (which is the case if one insists that Grappled Condition `entirely prevents movement` aka reading the Entangled condition into it), but likewise there isn`t any mechanic by which a Controller-Grappler`s CMD or CMB (no matter how high compared to Bullrusher`s CMB) affects whether or not another creature can Bullrush it`s target out of it`s grasp (if that is allowed by reading of Grappled Condition), which doesn`t seem balanced either. If the `Grappled KEEPS the Target in an adjacent square until broken` Errata option (in the above issue) is chosen, it seems a prime place to deal with mentioning opposed checks for something like this (and this mechanic could apply to other cases, e.g. Disarm vs. somebody Blade-binding somebody else, disrupting their Bladebinding)... It also could apply to the case of Character A and Character B both trying to Grapple NPC X in a non-cooperative way, i.e. they both want to take control of NPC X, so focused both against NPC X`s self-control and control by the other character.
Some object to usage of Bullrush like this in the case of `rescuing` an ally from a Grapple (or Black Tentacles or the like), claiming that the rules provide a way for aiding an ally (via Aid Another)... Though the actual wording there isn`t actually presenting that as the ONLY possible way, although it`s the only way the rules mention. For mediocre allies, using Aid Another (which only needs to beat DC10) to Aid a robust ally is probably the best option (for example, increasing their chances to escape from 60% to 70%). Bullrush is probably the best option for robust allies trying to assist a weak ally to move out of a Grapple (assuming Grapples are broken by not being in Reach, or out of Area of Effect for Black Tentacles), since a +2 from Aid Another may not be that much of a help for a melee-weak character (for example, if they would still need a Nat. 20 to escape).
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
195 of the Core Rulebook has a footnote on Grappling. That says that you lose your Dex bonus to AC. Which in fact means that you are still vulnerable to sneak attack.
Summary? This needs errata. Either remove those footnotes from the grappled and pinned entries on the table, or add those effects to the text.
Text vs Table, go with Text.
PHB p567 says you lose -4 DEX. So you don't become Sneak Bait.
I thought my examples above may be misleading for e.g. Bullrush vs. Grappled character.
In a simpler case, why couldn`t a Grappled character decide to Bullrush the (Controller) Opponent away?
Again, this runs into the situation that RAW doesn`t say the Grapple ends just for being outside of threat range (or adjacent), but assuming something reasonable is done there, this seems like a reasonable tactic to use. Whether or not it disrupts the Grappled Condition per RAW, I also don`t see any reason why you can`t Bullrush your Grappler opponent per RAW, either (caveat: unless one reads the strong Entangled condition into Grappled`s ´you can`t move´ rule).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Also another question of RAW/RAI:
If you don`t have `Improved Maneuver X` Feat, using Maneuver X provokes an AoO, whose damage (if any) increases the CMD opposing the CMB check. But what if `for some other reason` a Maneuver itself STILL provokes an AoO (e.g. Pugilist Barbarian ability, making Grapples against you ALWAYS provoke) ...Does that AoO`s damage also increase the DC/CMD?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
195 of the Core Rulebook has a footnote on Grappling. That says that you lose your Dex bonus to AC. Which in fact means that you are still vulnerable to sneak attack.
Summary? This needs errata. Either remove those footnotes from the grappled and pinned entries on the table, or add those effects to the text.
Text vs Table, go with Text.
PHB p567 says you lose -4 DEX. So you don't become Sneak Bait.
I agree that with text vs. table, go with text. This is not a case of text vs. table. The two are not in conflict. While many of us think that the table footnote is a vestigial remnant of the editing process, what remains are two different rules, which are not in conflict, and so which both apply. It will be seen differently by different players until resolved.
My guess is that losing Dex in the table is just something which never got cleaned up in the transition from 3.5. The text rules never say that you don't lose your Dex though, so it is vague at best. Still, I'll ignore the table on this unless there's some official clarification that it is correct.
"The Grapple Condition says you can`t take any actions that require 2 Hands"
Considering the current threads on the Alchemist's "vestigial arm" discovery I wonder how this rule should work for characters with more than two hands. Should it be assumed that you lose the use of all hands but one or that you lose the use of one hand? In the latter case, is a one-armed character who gets grappled unable to take any actions which require the use of hands, or is there one hand minimum which remains free?
It also seems unclear to me whether non-humanoid creatures lose the use of a "hand" while they have the grappled condition. For instance, can a bear claw/claw/bite while grappled, or can he only claw/bite?
|
|
The d20pfsrd has a spreadsheet explaining this. Here it is.
There's an icon for a PDF, but no link (I looked at the HTML - no HREF). Any any link?
|
|
The d20pfsrd has a spreadsheet explaining this. Here it is.There's an icon for a PDF, but no link (I looked at the HTML - no HREF). Any any link?
Sorry about the uhh missing links (fixed now!)
FAQ!
Just to confirm, the grappler still can't make a full attack, because they need to use a standard action to maintain the grapple (but doing so automatically does damage), correct?
|
|
Judging by the huge number of grapple questions which pop up on these boards and others I can't imagine that my playing groups are the only ones which have disagreements about how grapple is supposed to work. Actually, the idea just struck me that maybe the reason the designers don't seem eager to provide a lot of official guidance is because they don't all agree about how Grapple works either.
I think this is it right here. I do hope they come to consensus fairly soon though, I'd like to put to rest my misgivings about certain aspects of the combat maneuver rules :) The less house rules the better, I say. :)
EDIT: LOL posted before I saw Sean post. Thanks Sean :)
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
FAQ!Just to confirm, the grappler still can't make a full attack, because they need to use a standard action to maintain the grapple (but doing so automatically does damage), correct?
Correct except for the auto-damage bit: the auto-damage is one of a selection of things you can do as a result of a successful maintaining of the grapple.
FAQ!Just to confirm, the grappler still can't make a full attack, because they need to use a standard action to maintain the grapple (but doing so automatically does damage), correct?
That's my understanding, yes -- unless you have the Flurry of Maneuvers monk archetype ability, in which case you can use your "extra maneuver" to maintain and still take a full attack action.
What this FAQ didn't clear up for me is the monster grapple rules. Grab, rake, constrict, and the consequences of taking that -20 are all still unclear, IMO.
Also, does making a full-attack action with natural attacks "take 2 hands"? Maybe only if I have claw attacks? A claw/claw/bite monster can make how many attacks while grappled? How about a beak/talon monster, or a bite/wing/wing monster, or a hooves monster?
Uh... Great that the contradiction was cleared up, but what about the hard stuff?
Does Pinned or Bound count as Helpless?
A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy.
(obviously, that line would be clearer if it read ´paralyzed, sleeping, etc... creatures count as Helpless´)
What is the actual nature of Grappled´s movement restriction? (compare wording vs. the stronger Entangled condition)
Does it only prevent you from moving ´yourself´? Or does it prevent all external forces from moving you?
If the first case, you should be able to be Bullrushed while being Grappled.
No mechanic exists for if the ´controller´ doesn´t want this to happen (to their Grapple target).
(or even if the ´controlled´ would rather keep grappling with the ´controller´ and not have them Bullrushed away)
If the second case, two Grapplers could have the floor be disintegrated from beneath them, yet they would never fall.
Also, related to the above but an independent issue, is the conditions for Grapple ending based on the position of the Grapplers.
E.g. Mage is Grappled and Dimension Door´s 500 ft. away. Are both Grapplers still Grappled until it isn´t maintained?
Or, Kraken Grabs a victim, and since the Kraken isn´t Grappled themselves (racial ability), uses a Move Action to Move away.
Is the victim still Grappled if the Kraken moves at maximum speed, leaving the victim outside the Kraken´s reach?
What if the Kraken only moves far enough to put the victim at the Kraken´s maximum Natural Reach? (probably outside the victim´s Reach)
I´m not sure if escaping/reversing a Grapple isn´t subject to normal threatening rules,
but if it IS still subject to them, the Kraken victim couldn´t attack back or try to escape,
and the same would apply to any 0-reach creatures Grappled by normal characters who remain adjacent.
If Grapples are broken by being out of threat-range, Bull-Rushing an attacker who has Grappled you would be an alternate way to get out of a Grapple (or help an ally who is Grappled). This seems reasonable to me, I just think the opposed Grappler´s CMD should be used if you are trying to Grapple their target away from them.
FAQ!Just to confirm, the grappler still can't make a full attack, because they need to use a standard action to maintain the grapple (but doing so automatically does damage), correct?
Barring some funky ability that allows you to perform a full attack plus another action, correct.
Also, does making a full-attack action with natural attacks "take 2 hands"? Maybe only if I have claw attacks? A claw/claw/bite monster can make how many attacks while grappled? How about a beak/talon monster, or a bite/wing/wing monster, or a hooves monster?
This probably ties into what I wrote earlier, that the Grappled CONDTION part about 2-handed actions probably needs similar wording about ´2 armed humanoids´, i.e. the wording that IS used in the Grapple section of the Combat rules. It also ties into people´s question about 3-handed Alchemist, i.e. does the restriction REALLY mean ´you can´t use one of your hands because it´s busy with the Grapple´, or does it mean ´you can´t use 2 hands even if you have 3 hands, just because that´s too complicated/too easily interrupted by the Grapple´.
Also, I will repeat my question about CMB AoO´s:
If you don`t have `Improved Maneuver X` Feat, using Maneuver X provokes an AoO, whose damage (if any) increases the CMD opposing the CMB check. But what if `for some other reason` a Maneuver (attack) itself STILL provokes an AoO (e.g. Come and Get Me or Savage Grapple, making attacks/Grapples against you ALWAYS provoke) ...Does that AoO`s damage also increase the DC/CMD?
For something like Come and Get Me (which grants an AoO triggered by an attack, which a maneuver is), it would appear to be a ´generic´ AoO, which MAY not trigger the ´non-Improved Maneuver DMG to DC´ clause (but I´m not sure, maybe Maneuvers are like Spells that can be interrupted by any AoO). But the Pugilist Barbarian ¨Savage Grapple¨ ability is worded in a way POSSIBLY suggesting that it´s NOT just a generic AoO, but specifically the exact ´same´ AoO that happens from not having Improved Grapple/Grab.
She can make an attack of opportunity against creatures trying to grapple her even if they possess the Improved Grapple feat or the grab special attack.
Correct except for the auto-damage bit: the auto-damage is one of a selection of things you can do as a result of a successful maintaining of the grapple.FAQ!Just to confirm, the grappler still can't make a full attack, because they need to use a standard action to maintain the grapple (but doing so automatically does damage), correct?
Good point.
It's still a bad idea to grapple a monk...
The Maneuver Master has an ability that causes the same question with respect to any maneuvers the MM has the Improved feat for.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
To follow up on the 2-hand thing, does that prevent things like 2WF?
(the action of 2WF Full Attack requires 2 hands, even though none of it´s component parts actually use 2-hands,
assuming no double weapon is involved... RAW, 2wf seems a no-no, RAI I could see going either way.)
Also, what happens when a Monster with a Grab atttack is Grappled by an opponent, and instead of trying to break/reverse the Grapple ´normally´, they simply Full Attack back, which hits and triggers their Grab ability? Grab ´establishes´ a Grapple, so does it create a separate Grapple track, or SHOULD it escape/reverse the existing Grapple in this case? By common usage, Grab CAN´T be used for Maintain, i.e. other usages of Grapple besides ´establishing´ a new Grapple, but in this case should ´establising´ be equated with ´reversing´?
I also a decent number of threads where people still want to know how to handle multi-opponent Grapple situations...
Both where multiple enemies gang up on one target (would the target have to escape/reverse each Grapple separately?),
and where different Grapplers are ´competing´ over who can Grapple/Control a given target...
For example, both sides want to grab Lem the Halfling because he´s the secret ingredient in both of their´s evil rituals. How do we resolve that both sides are trying to gain control over Lem?, i.e. they don´t want him FREE, but are competing against eachother nonetheless.
What checks should Lem be making to escape from BOTH opponents? (whether they are competing or not) Just one check, or two?
|
|
FAQ!Just to confirm, the grappler still can't make a full attack, because they need to use a standard action to maintain the grapple (but doing so automatically does damage), correct?
can that be combined with vital strike at all? considering that at higher levels, two humanoids grappling ... sucks? damage wize, vs. just letting go and using any other weapon a few times on your target?
It can´t. Grapple is it´s own distinct Standard Action, just like Attack Action (Vital Strike) is, just like Standard Action Spellcasting is, just like Cleave is. Basically, the rules are giving you a major hint that if you want to do damage as your main goal, the standard approach to Grappling is not how you want to accomplish that.. With Greater Grapple, and other advanced options including Grab, combing both damage and grappling becomes more viable.