Hey gang,
So, I may have the opportunity to play a little Pathfinder in an upcoming game, and it's been a while for me, so I'm a little rusty and new to some of the more recent material. I'm thinking of playing a human Lore Warden focused around tripping and grappling, and as you know, that can get a little complicated, so I thought I'd ask for some help. Specifically, I need advice on feat selection and interpretation of some rules.
The GM is still waffling on whether we're starting at as low as 4th or as high as 9th, so I need to think ahead. Here's what I have so far, featwise:
1 - Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple, Belier's Bite/Power Attack? (human bonus)
2 - Combat Expertise (bonus), Improved Trip
3 - Ki Throw
4 - Binding Throw
5 - Fury's Fall
6 - Greater Grapple
7 - Greater Trip
8 - Hamatula Strike
9 - Rapid Grappler
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but this appears to be my routine starting at 9th level, assuming there is a trippable opponent within reach:
a) make a trip attempt as a standard action
b) if successful, this provokes an AoO; attack using cestus dealing piercing damage against prone opponent
c) if attack hits, begin a grapple as a free action as per Hamatula Strike, again applying prone bonuses
d) if grapple succeeds, grapple again as a move action (Greater Grapple) to pin
e) if pin succeeds, make yet another grapple as a swift action (Rapid Grappler) to either damage or tie the target up (so as to move on to the next victim)
A couple questions about this:
* Characters who have fallen prone suffer a -4 penalty to AC; this applies to their CMD, too, correct? Likewise, they suffer a -4 penalty on attack rolls, and this applies to their CMB when grappling, right?
* When beginning a grapple with Hamatula Strike, can I apply my Weapon Training and the enhancement bonus on my cestus to my CMB in the same way that you'd apply them to a trip?
* If I trip someone, and miss my AoO, can I still use Binding Throw to attempt a grapple as a free action?
And one more general question: Is it even worth playing a grappler that isn't a Tetori monk, given how awesome Freedom of Movement is? I suppose I can still trip the hell out of casters if/once we start encountering FoM, but otherwise my damage isn't going to be particularly amazing (1d4 + str + weapon training + enhancement + either bleed or power attack). I'm sort of counting on the party rogue to just stand beside me and SA the hell out of whoever I'm pinning at the moment. :P I'm not aiming for pure optimization, but unless I'm grossly mistaken about something, this build is looking pretty okay. I've contemplated eventually adding two levels of Brutal Pugilist (Barbarian), picking up Animal Fury for the sexy bite attack, but it doesn't quite fit the image I'm going for..
Thanks in advance for taking the time to look this over. Any comments/suggestions are appreciated!
|
B) With greater trip the opponent is not prone when the AOO is resolved. Only with Vicious Stomp is the opponent is prone when doing the AOO.
C) This is actually weird due to B. If you AOO and start a grapple, technically the enemy can't move, and you can't move it until you maintain the grapple and then do the move option. But I don't think any GM would nitpick it because it doesn't make much sense. What will probably happen is you get your Hamatula grapple without the benefit of the enemy being prone and then he just goes prone after resolving the AOO.
D) Yes
E) Yes
* characters in fact due take negative AC modifiers to their CMD.
* A combat maneuver is an attack roll, but prone calls out the -4 for "melee attack" rolls. Hopefully someone with more rules experience can help us out on that one.
* The Hamatula strike issue isn't clear in the rules. I believe the intent of the designers is to always get the bonus on maneuvers when you use a weapon to do them. Grapple isn't called out in the paizo blog post about combat maneuvers the way trip and reposition are, because grappling normally assumes your hands. It's contentious as to whether your unarmed strike bonuses from weapon training, weapon focus, etc, will help you grapple.
*Binding throw uses as swift action if i recall correctly. Yes, you could grapple them if you meet the requirements of binding throw, which is using ki throw to perform the trip. The ki throw is slightly different than a normal trip because you can only ki throw something your size or smaller. (normal trip you can do one size category larger).
To the general question: I haven't played a high level grappler personally so I hope someone else can comment on this. If your party has a cleric or wizard maybe they can dispel the freedom of movement for you.
Thanks for the reply, Veldebrand! That's a big help. The only thing you touched on that I'm still confused about is this:
B) With greater trip the opponent is not prone when the AOO is resolved. Only with Vicious Stomp is the opponent is prone when doing the AOO.
Is the rule about greater trip spelled out in specifics anywhere, like an FAQ? I can see how the feat text could be interpreted that way, and though I'm pretty sure our GM allows the AoO to take place once the target is rendered prone, it's probably because none of us have thought about it this way.
I missed the additional size restriction on Binding Throw - that's definitely something to watch out for. I'll have to make sure at least one of the casters has Enlarge Person... ^__^
|
|
I might be misunderstanding it for this particular case, but the way AOOs work is they interrupt the normal flow of combat when the trigger action occurs, and then you resolve the rest once the AOO is done.
Like when an opponent triggers an AOO for leaving a threatened square, you take the AOO and hit him BEFORE he actually leaves the square. That's why you can't trip lock someone once he's already prone. (you hit him with the AOO as he's prone, then he stands up)
After re-evaluating greater trip maybe I'm reading too much into it. It does say "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity." Maybe the enemy hits the floor first, but I think just the successful trip roll would trigger the AOO before he actually hit the floor.
Hopefully someone else can chime in here because there are still a couple questions you need answered and I could see the trip thing going either way.
This link talks about Greater Trip and Vicious Stomp.
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5ldw0?The-FAQ-That-Time-Forgot
|
|
As an aside, I think a hilarious character build with Hamatula strike would be a mortal combat scorpion style "Get over here" move. You enlarge, carry a long spear, and have the lunge feat. You tag an enemy 25' away and begin the grapple. The rules for grapple say you need to move the opponent adjacent to you.
Furthermore, you can just greater grapple, rapid grapple and damage him three times on your next turn. It's like skewering someone with a big ass spear.
Ha ha, yeah, that would be awesome. Strangely, Hamatula Strike doesn't even specify melee attacks, so you could pull it off with a rope dart (technically, as worded, you could somehow pull it off with a bow, but that's obviously against RAI!). Normally I'd restrict it to only melee weapons, but I would so allow the rope dart just on principle. ^___^
The absolute best use of Hamatula Strike is in combination with 10 levels of Barbarian and the Body Bludgeon rage power: skewer someone on your spear and grapple them until they're pinned, then start beating other people to death with them like they were the head on a giant meat hammer. If you have some rope and you want to be really gross, tie them up and then skewer another victim, and keep going like that until you have a big ol' kebab of death. (EDIT: If you take 3 levels of Monk of the Empty Hand first, you can deal piercing damage with an improvised weapon and use a pinned opponent to impale another opponent. Ewwww.)
And now I've derailed my own thread. lol Sorry!
um i just want to add, that hamatula strike is not a grapple maneuver check, it applies the grappled condition only. so you could not gain the effects of a combat maneuver check.
so to clerify, you do not "grapple" the target (page 199 in the CRB) you only get the grappled condition (page 567 of the CRB)
if you want an actual grapple (maneuver) as the result of a trip you need this feat:
Binding Throw
my advice would be ignore the cestus completely and just focus on making your armor spikes as good as possible. you can use them in place of an unarmed attack for AOO, grapple, and even standard/full attack actions.
the only way a cestus would be valuable is if you were twfing your armor spikes and the cestus at the same time. and yes you need to have your caster use dispell magic on the freedom of movement of spell casters, its the only way to grapple them. the most important thing you can equipe on your character is a ghost touch AoMF, and stacking your touch ac as high as possible or you wont be able to grapple more then 1/3 of the things you may face in a fight.
um i just want to add, that hamatula strike is not a grapple maneuver check, it applies the grappled condition only. so you could not gain the effects of a combat maneuver check.
so to clerify, you do not "grapple" the target (page 199 in the CRB) you only get the grappled condition (page 567 of the CRB)
if you want an actual grapple (maneuver) as the result of a trip you need this feat:
Binding Throw
I think it's just a very awkwardly worded feat. The other half of the feat talks about making grapple checks to deal damage with weapons you wouldn't ordinarily be able to use during a grapple; even the "normal" section gives the impression that we're talking about a regular grapple, not just two players with the grappled condition. And if this feat doesn't trigger a proper grapple, there is no listed way of escaping the grapple; as worded you would both be grappling each other until the end of time.
I will bring this up with my GM to get her interpretation, though, as her's is the only one that counts. Good point to bring up, though.
my advice would be ignore the cestus completely and just focus on making your armor spikes as good as possible. you can use them in place of an unarmed attack for AOO, grapple, and even standard/full attack actions.
the only way a cestus would be valuable is if you were twfing your armor spikes and the cestus at the same time. and yes you need to have your caster use dispell magic on the freedom of movement of spell casters, its the only way to grapple them. the most important thing you can equipe on your character is a ghost touch AoMF, and stacking your touch ac as high as possible or you wont be able to grapple more then 1/3 of the things you may face in a fight.
Why did I not think of using armor spikes?? At one point this build was a Tetori monk, so in my brain I think I was still picturing no armor. Great suggestion! Maybe I'll switch my Weapon Focus to the "Close" group then.
I think it's just a very awkwardly worded feat. The other half of the feat talks about making grapple checks to deal damage with weapons you wouldn't ordinarily be able to use during a grapple; even the "normal" section gives the impression that we're talking about a regular grapple, not just two players with the grappled condition. And if this feat doesn't trigger a proper grapple, there is no listed way of escaping the grapple; as worded you would both be grappling each other until the end of time.
yes i agree with you that it is a poorly worded feat, but to clerify the confusion of why you can use a 2 handed weapon:
(condition: grappled, page 567 CRB)"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 or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity."
the bold section explains why that clarification is in there. if you didnt have that exception in the feat, you would not be able to use 2 handed weapons while using the feat, as it says you cannot perform any action using 2 hands while you have the grappled condition active.
*edit*
all grappled conditions can be negated with a CMB grapple versus the CMD of the person or object who initiated the grapple condition. in this case it should be your CMD, but i have no RAW to back that up.
the only RAW way to remove this grapple is if you choose to release it, or the target sunders the weapon.
I think it's just a very awkwardly worded feat. The other half of the feat talks about making grapple checks to deal damage with weapons you wouldn't ordinarily be able to use during a grapple; even the "normal" section gives the impression that we're talking about a regular grapple, not just two players with the grappled condition. And if this feat doesn't trigger a proper grapple, there is no listed way of escaping the grapple; as worded you would both be grappling each other until the end of time.yes i agree with you that it is a poorly worded feat, but to clerify the confusion of why you can use a 2 handed weapon:
(condition: grappled, page 567 CRB)
"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 or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity."the bold section explains why that clarification is in there. if you didnt have that exception in the feat, you would not be able to use 2 handed weapons while using the feat, as it says you cannot perform any action using 2 hands while you have the grappled condition active.
I see where you're coming from, and I get that, but I still get the impression that this is an actual grapple. Again, it's the "normal" text that makes it sound like an actual grapple:
Benefit: 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. While the opponent is impaled, as an attack action you may make a grapple check on your turn at a -4 penalty to damage the opponent with your weapon, even if your weapon cannot normally be used in a grapple.
Normal: You can only attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against opponents you are grappling.
That implies to me that you are grappling, as per a normal grapple, and that Hamatula Strike is giving you the additional option of dealing damage with a 2-handed weapon, albeit at a penalty.
And it specifically calls for a grapple check, not just a combat maneuver check or some other opposed roll.
I can see both interpretations, but this one feels like the simplest one to me. If it's a proper grapple then all the rules are there to support escaping the grapple, attacking with a light weapon, etc.