| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so back in 3.0 they had an EWP called a harpoon. it was an amazing weapon used for controlling characters on the field. how it worked was, everytime i hit someone they had to make a dc10+ damage dealt or be grappled. then they needed to take a full round to remove the harpoon or take aditional damage. now in 3.5 this wasn't really broken by comparison to what you could do with other weapons and builds, but still it was hands down my favorit character i ever played.
now the harpoon in PF is crap by comparison, but when coupled with the feat hamatula strike, it is very similar to how my 3.0 character functioned, which i love.
here is hamatula strike "Whenever you damage an opponent with a piercing weapon, you can immediately make a grapple check; success means the opponent is impaled on your weapon and you both gain the grappled condition"
now.. im a little concerned that at 7th level i can give characters the grappled condition at a range with little to no failure chance against a good chunk of PFS targets. anyone think this is too cheazy for Pathfinder? what i mean is in contrast to power of 3.5 this was a 3/10, a good build but not the "i hit for 50,000 damage" builds you could make. pathfinder is much weaker in that reguard, so im concerned this will be over powering.
here is my build, its not done yet
fighter 8 (lorewarden), barbarian 4
H quick draw
1 two handed thrower
f EWP harpoon
f IUS
3 iron will
f improved grapple
5 improved iron will
f greter grapple
7 hamatula strike
i might change a few levels around to get the character i want, but this is the basic idea.
Hamatula Strike is kind of bizarre already, since it doesn't specify that it needs to be a melee weapon--technically, you can use a bow to shoot someone 500 feet away and grapple them. The best part is that when you grapple someone that is not adjacent to you, you move them adjacent--so you can snipe someone and then ripcord them over to you the entire distance in an instant, without needing an actual cord...or logic.
So, the way the feat works is pretty broken. I don't think it's overpowered with a harpoon, mind you (you have to win a grapple check, for example, which is hardly easy), just weird.
I think you need to ask your GM about this.
mplindustries, i noticed that as well. my logic is that the feat was designed to be used with melee weapons, and the harpoon counts as a 2 handed melee weapon.
i was not aware that they would move to you, i thought it just applied the grappled condition to the target.
|
If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails).
(Source)
The bow example is sketchy, but this strikes me as an entirely reasonable way to use a harpoon. You are spending a feat on EWP to use Hamatula Strike with a 10ft thrown reach.
If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails).(Source)
The bow example is sketchy, but this strikes me as an entirely reasonable way to use a harpoon. You are spending a feat on EWP to use Hamatula Strike with a 10ft thrown reach.
I agree that it's totally reasonable to use with a Harpoon, but the fact is, using it with a Bow from hundreds of feet away is no more or less RAW than using it with a Harpoon from 10 feet away.
That's why I think you should consult your GM about it.
The feat itself is broken and needs to be rewritten, since it doesn't compute well with the action mechanics of Pathfinder.
rght but thats from the "grapple" combat maneuver. that is its own action. im not reading hamatula strike as making a "grapple" as the maneuver but just a check to apply the grappled condition.
it seems like its using a different set of rules then a true grapple maneuver like my tetori would use in combat.
@ Jupp: Because it does.
With how the Hamatula Strike feat is currently written compared to current Pathfinder rules, the feat cannot function (unless you have Greater Grapple, which I doubt many people are willing to spend the feats for; on top of which, the rules are written with a complete disregard to current Pathfinder rules).
If you can get your GM to handwave some of the rules, or rewrite it so that it's compatible with the current Pathfinder rules, it makes for a decent feat to get.
when i look at this feat it basically says "dont look at grapple from the combat section" as the feat tells you what success means. these are the rules for a hamatula strike:
1. make a check against the target CMD, sucess applies the grappled condition to both you and the target.
2. you may use a standard attack action to damage the target with your weapon at -4 to damage.
but i dont want to keep arguing this, im more asking if this would be to akward, forign, or powerful to play without people scoffing at it.
|
|
Yeah, check with your GM about the details, especially regarding whether you automatically pull your opponent adjacent. In general this does not look too awkward or powerful to me. Darksol the Painbringer's complaint seems to be that without Greater Grapple you can't use the standard action to damage and also maintain the grapple, but since you have taken Greater Grapple this shouldn't be a problem.
I don't know how to answer your question of whether it will be awkward, foreign, or powerful.
It certainly has a chance to be very powerful -- grappling at will and moving them forcibly around a battlefield. It is definitely awkward, as the lack of logic in the feat has been pointing out -- this feat should, theoretically, work with a bow or a thrown dagger (including magically moving the target towards you). The visual alone makes me chuckle.
It's likely to be foreign -- as this is not a commonly used weapon.
Why does it matter whether it's awkward, foreign, or powerful? You clearly have every intention of playing this character this way. Why ... do you want our opinion?
Why does it matter whether it's awkward, foreign, or powerful? You clearly have every intention of playing this character this way. Why ... do you want our opinion?
ecause doing something that is of the opinion as "broken, or illogical" usually makes peple upset. i dont like making waves, so i may choose not to play it in PFS format and just wait for a home game.
i know its not as bad as a magus one hitting everything, bt still i would like an outside opinion of the character.
i have been looking and looking for the archer feat that grapples(i think it was a feat) but for the life of me i cant find it again. it basically mentioned rules about being in the grapple with the arrow, and gave the str dc and hardness/hp of the arrow you had to deal with to end the grapple. that ring a bell to anyone? i thought that might work in this instance.
i have been looking and looking for the archer feat that grapples(i think it was a feat) but for the life of me i cant find it again. it basically mentioned rules about being in the grapple with the arrow, and gave the str dc and hardness/hp of the arrow you had to deal with to end the grapple. that ring a bell to anyone? i thought that might work in this instance.
Sounds like part of Trick Shot, from the Fighter's Archer archetype.
i have been looking and looking for the archer feat that grapples(i think it was a feat) but for the life of me i cant find it again. it basically mentioned rules about being in the grapple with the arrow, and gave the str dc and hardness/hp of the arrow you had to deal with to end the grapple. that ring a bell to anyone? i thought that might work in this instance.Sounds like part of Trick Shot, from the Fighter's Archer archetype.
ah! tyvm :) i knew i saw it somewhere, but i guess it isn't a feat. wouldn't be a bad feat to homerule though if you wanted to make a character like that. i think it solves the whole ranged-grapple thing nicely, imo.
No rules need to be handwaved. The feat works fine as written.
It does not work fine as written, because by RAW, as several of us have pointed out, you can use a long range weapon like a Bow or Rifle and, in defiance of all logic, pull any enemy you hit adjacent to you just by succeeding on a Grapple check.
It makes sense with a Harpoon since you have a rope attached--it makes no sense for a dagger, arrow, or bullet.
I think people are confusing the "Grappled Condition" with actual grappling. What does the Grappled Condition apply to you?
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.
Nowhere in that condition is anyone moved into or out of any spaces. Just because you have the grappled condition, doesn't mean you are grappled.
I think people are confusing the "Grappled Condition" with actual grappling. What does the Grappled Condition apply to you?
** spoiler omitted **
Nowhere in that condition is anyone moved into or out of any spaces. Just because you have the grappled condition, doesn't mean you are grappled.
You explicitly make a grapple check as part of the feat. Moving the enemy adjacent to you is a consequence of successfully making a grapple check.
You explicitly make a grapple check as part of the feat. Moving the enemy adjacent to you is a consequence of successfully making a grapple check.
No, the feat explicitly says that making a grapple check gives the Grappled Condition. No where does the feat say you begin to grapple.
But the problems are with other weapons. There is no problem, in terms of logic or power, in applying the feat as written to a harpoon, so the OP should be fine.
There are no problems, even with an arrow. No one moves, they simply gain the grappled condition. That's it. To say anything else happens you are reading well past what the feat says.
But the problems are with other weapons. There is no problem, in terms of logic or power, in applying the feat as written to a harpoon, so the OP should be fine.There are no problems, even with an arrow. No one moves, they simply gain the grappled condition. That's it. To say anything else happens you are reading well past what the feat says.
Even assuming you're right (and you're not, because you make a grapple check and part of a successful grapple check is moving adjacent), and the guy gets to stay where he is instead of teleporting next to you, the idea that you think it's fine for someone to shoot an arrow at a guy 500 feet away (with no trailing rope or anything else) and:
1) Both you and the target are grappled, so you both have penalties to Dexterity and attack rolls that aren't grapple checks
2) Neither of you can use Stealth against the other, and Invisibility only gives a +2 to CMD against the other guy
3) You can repeatedly continue to hurt the other guy using your bow with grapple rolls (even though they are 500 feet away with just an arrow in them)
4) You can move them ("You can move both yourself and your target up to half your speed. At the end of your movement, you can place your target in any square adjacent to you") anyway, so even if they don't automatically move next to you at the start of the whole thing, you can still make that happen next turn
5) You can Pin him, somehow, from 500 feet away, I guess using your voodoo doll or something?
6) The other guy can beat you in a grapple check and then immediately drag you to him as per 4 or pin you, as per 5.
This is insane, and very broken (and I don't mean "overpowered" broken, I mean "this literally does not function properly" broken).
1) Both you and the target are grappled,
Yeah, most abilities are pretty insane and broken when you don't actually read them.
Only the target gains the grappled condition. That's it. You do not gain the grappled condition. The target does not move adjacent to you. The only thing that happens is what, you know, the actual text of the ability says happens.
(Think of it this way: the target is being grappled by your arrow, not by you. The arrow is indeed adjacent to the target, and I don't think the arrow minds suffering penalties for being grappled, since it's an object.)
Even assuming you're right (and you're not, because you make a grapple check and part of a successful grapple check is moving adjacent), and the guy gets to stay where he is instead of teleporting next to you, the idea that you think it's fine for someone to shoot an arrow at a guy 500 feet away (with no trailing rope or anything else) and:
I am right. A grapple check is simply one character's CMB (with any bonuses for grappling) compared to another character's CMD. That's it, that's all nothing else is included in a check at all.
The rule you are quoting comes from the grapple combat maneuver. Are you performing the grapple combat maneuver? Nope, well then those rules don't apply. All that does apply is the feat, which doesn't say anything about it, and the condition which, again, doesn't say anything about it.
Whether it makes sense and is logical is up for individual GM's to decide, considering most GM's are okay people being completely ambidextrous (i.e. able to fight equally well with a weapon in either hand, which is pretty impossible for a human being) and launching fireballs from your finger tips, meh what's a little more?
1) Both you and the target are grappled,Yeah, most abilities are pretty insane and broken when you don't actually read them.
Or is it the other way around...
(Think of it this way: the target is being grappled by your arrow, not by you. The arrow is indeed adjacent to the target, and I don't think the arrow minds suffering penalties for being grappled, since it's an object.)
That's not the way to think of it. The ability was clearly intended to only be used with melee weapons, so it makes no sense for the target to be grappled by the arrow--they are supposed to be grappled by you by virtue of being impaled on your spear.
The rule you are quoting comes from the grapple combat maneuver. Are you performing the grapple combat maneuver? Nope, well then those rules don't apply. All that does apply is the feat, which doesn't say anything about it, and the condition which, again, doesn't say anything about it.
Ok, I'm going to come from a different direction on this:
You say the only thing that happens is both I (for some reason, even though I just shot an arrow from 500 feet away) and the target (who has an arrow in them without any cord or anything by which I can control them) are grappled.
Alright, now what? What happens next turn? Do I need to keep making grapple checks to keep them grappled? I can certainly keep attacking them with CMB rolls, right?
How do they remove the grappled condition? How do I remove the grappled condition? Can we just freely walk around no problem? How do you say this whole thing works if this thing that calls for a grapple roll and inflicts the grappled condition doesn't follow the grapple rules? Walk me through it.
Sometimes you can use RAW to completely break immersion, and take a dump on RAI. Design is like this - things that seem clear to the creator might be interpreted differently when they are communicated to the end user.
Even so, I should think that the intention is fairly clear:
You can catch your opponents on your weapon and hold them in place.
As such, I don't know if anybody in PFS would allow this feat to be used at range - I can almost hear James Jacobs weeping at this gap in logic.
Powerful, manly dinosaur tears.
Regardless, in a home game I think it would be quite reasonable to let you do this, maybe with a Scorpion-style cord attached to said harpoon to account for your character also being grappled. That seems entirely reasonable, and consistent with what the feat is supposed to represent - namely impalement. In PFS, there's less GM wiggle room - because for every reasonable harpooning case, there's somebody who can make an argument that this should work with their sniper rifle, thus enabling them to teleport enemies to an adjacent square.
In short, I'd certainly allow it in a game, but I wouldn't expect it to fly in PFS.
I hope that's useful :)
