Well, this certainly clears up why one would think monks are awesome...
yeppers this only applies to grappled not to normal attack rolls...i am not completely off my rocker.
says you. we can agree to disagree. I have done this in a few games and it is by no means a game breaker.It's not a matter of interpretation. It's just a matter of reading the rules and understanding how English words form sentences.weird , I disagree with your interpretation and only the amazing james jacobs can change my mind.
The rules say you attack and roll for damage whenever you do an attack.
Grapple is an attack so in order for grapple to do max damage it has to be specifically stated as an exception. If the rules dont explicitly call out an exception then you can't do it.
|
weird , I disagree with your interpretation and only the amazing james jacobs can change my mind.
If there was a dislike button, I would click it endlessly for this post.
Why do you need developer input when everyone in the community who has replied to this is telling you your wrong? This includes PFS players and GM's more than likely, as well as lots of PF regulars who know their rules-fu.
There are tons of abilities that DO specify max damage.
There are tons of people who play this game, yet have never suggested this theory of:
`it does maximum damage even though maximum is never stated,
just because it didn`t re-state rolling damage (which no other ability re-states)`
says you. we can agree to disagree. I have done this in a few games and it is by no means a game breaker.It's not a matter of interpretation. It's just a matter of reading the rules and understanding how English words form sentences.weird , I disagree with your interpretation and only the amazing james jacobs can change my mind.
The rules say you attack and roll for damage whenever you do an attack.
Grapple is an attack so in order for grapple to do max damage it has to be specifically stated as an exception. If the rules dont explicitly call out an exception then you can't do it.
wow I am sorry that I read it different. please don't hate me
i am really a nice guy. just different.
says you. we can agree to disagree. I have done this in a few games and it is by no means a game breaker.It's not a matter of interpretation. It's just a matter of reading the rules and understanding how English words form sentences.weird , I disagree with your interpretation and only the amazing james jacobs can change my mind.
The rules say you attack and roll for damage whenever you do an attack.
Grapple is an attack so in order for grapple to do max damage it has to be specifically stated as an exception. If the rules dont explicitly call out an exception then you can't do it.wow I am sorry that I read it different. please don't hate me
i am really a nice guy. just different.
I am not hating, just explaining that the rules are clear on exceptions.
You never responded to my punching bag example.
weird , I disagree with your interpretation and only the amazing james jacobs can change my mind.
If there was a dislike button, I would click it endlessly for this post.
Why do you need developer input when everyone in the community who has replied to this is telling you your wrong? This includes PFS players and GM's more than likely, as well as lots of PF regulars who know their rules-fu.
because people always agree on forums about everything....? especially here? lol
|
|
Its nothing personal against you Lobolusk I just have a massive rage moment when someone is told they are wrong and they insist on a developer to come in and spend their time confirming what everyone else in the topic knows already. Its a growing trend and one that does provoke a dramatic response in me, I apologise.
Attempting to move back on-topic...
If it was meant to do maximum damage, it would specify it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
says you.Says the rules of the game.
This is not in any way ambiguous. The rules of the game make it entirely clear that you roll for damage.
Is English your first language?
yes it is. grammar and doing this and working are not. the reading states "equal to your unarmed damage"
and what is your unarmed damage. like someone said.
It is 1d8+Y not 8+Y as an example.As far as James Jacobs I have two things to say.
1.
For the record, Owen is a developer for Super Genius Games and a freelancer for Paizo, but that doesn't mean he is a developer for or at Paizo. Feel free to consider his opinions about the Pathfinder rules, but you should not interpret his statements as official rulings for the Pathfinder RPG--those only come from Paizo employees, mainly Jason, myself, and Stephen.2.
There's plenty of folks on those boards who have great insight into the rules; you don't have to be employed at Paizo to have that ability.
because people always agree on forums about everything....? especially here? lol
weird , I disagree with your interpretation and only the amazing james jacobs can change my mind.
If there was a dislike button, I would click it endlessly for this post.
Why do you need developer input when everyone in the community who has replied to this is telling you your wrong? This includes PFS players and GM's more than likely, as well as lots of PF regulars who know their rules-fu.
RAW and RAI you are incorrect. Agreeing is not the issue. You must find language that gives you permission to break the rules. You have failed to do so. You can FAQ this if you want, but if you want to keep your maximized unarmed damage maybe its better if you dont.
I am at work now so i cant plop out my rulke book even though it is at my feet in my bag. I will look it over and see. you make a lot of sense, esoterically with hitting inanimate objects. I can see i have to read up on the grappling and the attack rolls
i still think if they wanteds to make it clear they could of phrased it better. Just a little background I dont go over sentences line by line. i tend to take it as written, and not read it carefully, i am new to the whole Pathfinder forum thing and i never realized how much the writing gets taken apart line by line bit by bit. n ot my usual mo. i promise you I will look it over okay. not trying to make a big stink here.
|
|
(favourite's wraithstrikes post)
I think the phrasing is fine. Your the first person i've ever heard of in many years of gaming who has interpreted it that way (same for the guy who thinks BAB is tied to how many spells you can get off a round...) and I think confusion on this rule happens rarely enough that its not worth the time to errata it.
I am at work now so i cant plop out my rulke book even though it is at my feet in my bag. I will look it over and see. you make a lot of sense, esoterically with hitting inanimate objects. I can see i have to read up on the grappling and the attack rolls
i still think if they wanteds to make it clear they could of phrased it better. Just a little background I dont go over sentences line by line. i tend to take it as written, and not read it carefully, i am new to the whole Pathfinder forum thing and i never realized how much the writing gets taken apart line by line bit by bit. n ot my usual mo. i promise you I will look it over okay. not trying to make a big stink here.
You have to go over it line by line. Sometimes you have to look through several different parts of the book, and piece together very specific sentences just to figure out how something works. It does get tedious at times.
(favourite's wraithstrikes post)
I think the phrasing is fine. Your the first person i've ever heard of in many years of gaming who has interpreted it that way (same for the guy who thinks BAB is tied to how many spells you can get off a round...) and I think confusion on this rule happens rarely enough that its not worth the time to errata it.
sure I dont want a errata or a faq
again not trying to be a jerk or whatever i just have always done it that way.
I freely admit my rule fu is bad.
I just want to read up on it my self before i agree with you. and my dream of super punching dies with it. can you understand? every character i play is based upon this concept! it is like having to bury a favorite puppy or 3rd grader.
Lobolusk, first let me tell you that I realize you want to fight like El Santo, but listen to your fellow players, they are speaking the truth.
Since the very beginning, this game and the game this game came from have resolved damage as rolling dice. Always, unless specifically noted.
People have already mentioned this, and Shadow_of_death even made an argument you can't deny.
"You apply the equal of your unarmed damage..."
Unarmed Damage: 1d8 + X
^That's rolling 1d8, not a flat 8, you haven't countered this point because you really can't, there is no interpretation here.
Now, if you are the GM in your campaign and you decide you want to boost grapple in general and deliver max damage, that's A-OK but that's not Rules As Written.
I get were you are coming from, believe me I do, but please reconsider, or disregard my post entirely, but believe me when I tell you this with no ill will of any sort, my comments come entirely from sympathy.
Lobolusk, first let me tell you that I realize you want to fight like El Santo, but listen to your fellow players, they are speaking the truth.
Since the very beginning, this game and the game this game came from have resolved damage as rolling dice. Always, unless specifically noted.
People have already mentioned this, and Shadow_of_death even made an argument you can't deny.
"You apply the equal of your unarmed damage..."
Unarmed Damage: 1d8 + X
^That's rolling 1d8, not a flat 8, you haven't countered this point because you really can't, there is no interpretation here.
Now, if you are the GM in your campaign and you decide you want to boost grapple in general and deliver max damage, that's A-OK but that's not Rules As Written.
I get were you are coming from, believe me I do, but please reconsider, or disregard my post entirely, but believe me when I tell you this with no ill will of any sort, my comments come entirely from sympathy.
fine you all win ustedes ganadores!
I admit i was wrong and will now change it. i think it is worded wierd but hey what ever. it is not a deal breaker for me
Lobolusk is wrong.
Everybody else is right.
have you been talking to my father?>
Pinned: 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.Emphasis mine. This is not helpless, imho.
You are correct. Pinned is not helpless. I was getting one step ahead of myself. The greater grappler pins in one round, letting me do a round of my sneak attacks, and then ties up in the next round, letting me coup de grace if they are still up. (The wording on pinned is annoying as the first sentence is "The character is tightly bound," but this does not qualify them as "bound" for the sake of helpless).
And I don't understand the argument that you can't pin in one round with Greater Grapple. It lets you maintain as a move action. So standard action you grapple then, then move you maintain and pin. One round, they are pinned, no?
fine you all win ustedes ganadores!
I admit i was wrong and will now change it. i think it is worded wierd but hey what ever. it is not a deal breaker for me
It's not about winning, as I mentioned before you can play however you want in your home games, but by the book, it happens differently than you believe it works, it's no big deal really.
And not to be a grammar nazi or anything, but "Ustedes ganadores" means "You winners". I believe you wanted to say "You Win", that would be "Ustedes Ganan" or "Ustedes Ganaron", the latter would translate into "You have won".
quick Grapple question.
I am currently grappling my favorite 3rd grader he wants to hit me, with his tiny third grade dagger.
what penalties does he take?
i know grappling is on page 199-200
and the conditions are in the back
but what is the penalties specifically for attempting to attack a foe in the midst of grapple.
-2 correct?
fine you all win ustedes ganadores!
I admit i was wrong and will now change it. i think it is worded wierd but hey what ever. it is not a deal breaker for me
It's not about winning, as I mentioned before you can play however you want in your home games, but by the book, it happens differently than you believe it works, it's no big deal really.
And not to be a grammar nazi or anything, but "Ustedes ganadores" means "You winners". I believe you wanted to say "You Win", that would be "Ustedes Ganan" or "Ustedes Ganaron", the latter would translate into "You have won".
thanks, i almost never do third person plural. lol i am used to saying
tienes razón! or tu eres un ganador.
quick Grapple question.
I am currently grappling my favorite 3rd grader he wants to hit me, with his tiny third grade dagger.
what penalties does he take?
i know grappling is on page 199-200
and the conditions are in the back
but what is the penalties specifically for attempting to attack a foe in the midst of grapple.-2 correct?
Yes, but note that you also take a -2 to your AC from the Dexterity penalty of the Grappled condition.
This means that the toddler has to make the same role to hit you with his dagger as he would if the two of you were not grappling.Now, if the toddler is using Weapon Finesse, that will be another -2 for him because then the Dex penalty affects him, too.
This thread made me want to scrape my brains out. Thank the gods it ended well, surprisingly.
It's not about winning...
I think Charlie Sheen would disagree with you on that point.
My only experience with a grappler was with a tetori monk who completely broke the game. As such I think they'll be reasonable effective in a standard game.