In a recent game I was hosting, the party took on a really large aquatic monster with reach while in a rowboat. The giant moray eel lunged out of the water and bit and grabbed one of the PCs. As per this rule...
...he moved the PC to his opposite side, effectively separating said PC from his allies and placing him off the boat and into the water, where he became wholly ineffective and incredibly vulnerable to the creature's attacks.
Though the PCs managed to run the eel off, the player whose PC had been dunked called foul.
Did I do something wrong? Or is the player in question just being a sore loser? Is there a rule that specifically states that you MUST move the grappled victim to the nearest adjacent square? Because I'm not seeing anything of the sort.
On a related note, why would anyone ever both investing in the reposition combat maneuver when grapple and reach not only gives you far more options, but essentially lets you do it for free?
i think... RAW nothing you did was wrong, but RAI i think it was intended for closest available...
i think... RAW nothing you did was wrong, but RAI i think it was intended for closest available...
I would agree, considering that's equivalent to a (free) Reposition maneuver that beat the target's CMD by 15.
Whoah. I thought reposition was an all or nothing maneuver that allows you to move them to any adjacent square. You have to beat their CMD by 5 for every 5 feet (after the first) you wish to move them? How lame is that?
Whoah. I thought reposition was an all or nothing maneuver that allows you to move them to any adjacent square. You have to beat their CMD by 5 for every 5 feet (after the first) you wish to move them? How lame is that?
And that's why I would think you've given the Grapple reposition a bit too much power.
Doesn't really change my stance. I just now think that Reposition sucks even more.
Doesn't really change my stance. I just now think that Reposition sucks even more.
So do you think a Grapple with Reach is intended to allow the grappler to deposit the grappled at any adjacent square?
Or that they are supposed to draw it to the nearest adjacent square? (I agree that's not currently RAW)
Even if it is any adjacent square, should the grappled creature get the same benefit as the Move from a Grapple?
At the end of your movement, you can place your target in any square adjacent to you. If you attempt to place your foe in a hazardous location, such as in a wall of fire or over a pit, the target receives a free attempt to break your grapple with a +4 bonus.
Doesn't really change my stance. I just now think that Reposition sucks even more.So do you think a Grapple with Reach is intended to allow the grappler to deposit the grappled at any adjacent square?
Or that they are supposed to draw it to the nearest adjacent square?
I don't know about intent, but I think it makes a lot of sense conceptually. Heroes get thrown around by big monsters all the time in literature and media.
I don't know about intent, but I think it makes a lot of sense conceptually. Heroes get thrown around by big monsters all the time in literature and media.
Sure. And that's what the Move option is for. With the extra escape attempt and everything.
EDIT
Look at it this way:
I'm a Giant Moray Eel. I've got you grappled, with you on the boat. On my turn I could do either of the following:
1) make a grapple check to maintain the grapple (at +5), then move you over the water, giving you an escape attempt at +4 (and allowing you to use Escape Artist)
or
2) release the grapple as a free action, then grapple you again and move you over the water for free.
I don't think that's the intent.
Releasing the grapple would require additional checks before the target could be moved (instead of a grapple check, I suddenly need an attack roll AND a grapple check without the +5 bonus).
Better just to maintain in that case.
You did nothing wrong by RAW. The monster grabbed him and manhandled him as monsters are wont to do. If he thinks it's wrong, don't get into melee with something eight times your size.
Reposition is more for allies than for enemies. If you have someone that goes down you can basically auto succeed as you get an effective +9 to CMB. A Fighter could effectively throw a squishy 15 feet to safety.
Reposition is more for allies than for enemies. If you have someone that goes down you can basically auto succeed as you get an effective +9 to CMB. A Fighter could effectively throw a squishy 15 feet to safety.
RAW, you can't use reposition on allies.
RAW, you can't use reposition on allies.
Reposition is more for allies than for enemies. If you have someone that goes down you can basically auto succeed as you get an effective +9 to CMB. A Fighter could effectively throw a squishy 15 feet to safety.
Why not?
Why not?RAW, you can't use reposition on allies.
Reposition is more for allies than for enemies. If you have someone that goes down you can basically auto succeed as you get an effective +9 to CMB. A Fighter could effectively throw a squishy 15 feet to safety.
You can attempt to reposition a foe to a different location as a standard action.
Emphasis mine.
Why not?RAW, you can't use reposition on allies.
Reposition is more for allies than for enemies. If you have someone that goes down you can basically auto succeed as you get an effective +9 to CMB. A Fighter could effectively throw a squishy 15 feet to safety.You can attempt to reposition a foe to a different location as a standard action.Emphasis mine.
Player: I now see the Wizard as my foe.
DM: What?Player: Yep. Foe. He's down and no longer helping the party. In fact, him being unconscious is aiding and abetting the enemy. I want to throw my foe.
DM:...
Player: Yep. I'm going to throw my foe at that good for nothing healer.
Player: I want to Drag the Dominated Rogue away from the Sorcerer so he can dispel it and move during his turn.
DM: Nope. He's your ally. Nothing in the Dominate Person spell says anything about making him your foe.
Player: But that's just a useless naming convention used in the rules. It could say "target" or "being" or a multitude of other nouns. Are you saying I can't Sunder, Steal, Grapple, Disarm, Reposistion or anything else to him? Are you saying that Overun's size limitation doesn't matter if I'm using it on a Gargantuan ally? That doesn't make sense!
DM: Yep. He is your ally and rules say you love him. Deal.
That's the problem when you don't account for common sense.
Why does a creature with reach get a free move to place a creature anywhere adjacent to it, even on the opposite side, while a creature without reach gets nothing? Pulling it close makes sense to me. Flipping it to the other side, for free, without an additional check, does not.
How does it not make sense for a giant critter to not be able to flip someone over it or for a human to perform a suplex? Reposistion and Drag are simply poorly designed.
Edit: Redact my first comment to say "Player to effect players" instead of "allies"
How does it not make sense for a giant critter to not be able to flip someone over it or for a human to perform a suplex? Reposistion and Drag are simply poorly designed.
No, my point is that a Large creature that grapples a Gargantuan creature can flip it. It can flip anyone as long as they're not adjacent, regardless of the size of the target. But a Medium creature cannot move anything on the initial grapple. That strikes me as odd.
How does it not make sense for a giant critter to not be able to flip someone over it or for a human to perform a suplex? Reposistion and Drag are simply poorly designed.No, my point is that a Large creature that grapples a Gargantuan creature can flip it. It can flip anyone as long as they're not adjacent, regardless of the size of the target. But a Medium creature cannot move anything on the initial grapple. That strikes me as odd.
Hmmm, I always assumed it was limited by your carrying capacity.
I could totally see someone grabbing a larger creature's leg and tripping them up enough to stumble into a different location.
I could totally see someone grabbing a larger creature's leg and tripping them up enough to stumble into a different location.
Yes, but you can't do that if you are Medium or smaller. Which seems rather arbitrary to me.
Sure you can if your using the lunge feat
Or any number of other rules or abilities.
I honestly can't tell if you're missing my point or ignoring it. I give up.
I honestly can't tell if you're missing my point or ignoring it. I give up.
Sorry. Yes, I agree that it seems a little arbitrary.
|
Bruno grapple his thoughts:
1) By RAW, it is legal for creature with reach, after successful initial grapple check, to deposit foe in any adjacent square (Similar discussion here).
Could this be abused by a player or GM? Yes...but the door swings both ways and you can end up hoisted on your own grappling petard eventually.
2) By RAW if creature with reach, after successful initial grapple check, deposits foe in hazardous location, said placement does NOT trigger free attempt to escape grapple as that stipulation is specific to the "grapple check to move" action, not the initial grapple check.
That being said, Bruno would understand if GM ruled common sense dictates:
1) A creature with reach, after successful initial grapple check, must deposit foe in any adjacent square that lies between the grappler and victim's initial position. If those squares are occupied, then you look for eligible squares starting from the front and proceeding backward, with squares directly behind considered last.
2) If creature with reach, after successful initial grapple check, deposits foe in hazardous location, said placement triggers free attempt to escape grapple.
Bruno fine with either interpretation as long as GM is consistent.
Bruno fine with either interpretation as long as GM is consistent.
Agreed. To the point of the original topic, however, I would try to avoid killing PCs on a technicality.
Agreeing with Bruno. Do we have any kind of FAQ on that?
|
The Move action that can be used while maintaining a grapple says the following:
Move: 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.
Since this action allows the attacker to place the defender in any adjacent square, I think the intention of the initial grapple is to allow for the same.
During gameplay, I think in most cases the GM should choose the adjacent square between the attacker and defender as this would usually make the most sense (and to choose an adjacent square on the opposite side of the attacker may seem like a dick move, such as what happened with your players). Occasionally, I think you could get away with using any adjacent square if you can describe the 'reposition' well.
|
|
Agreeing with Bruno. Do we have any kind of FAQ on that?
Bruno will update FAQ for Bruizo.com website after Brunotorial finishes up last push for Ultimate Bruno sourcebook and the updated Bruno's Guide to Organized Play 4.4 for BrunoFinder Society. Of course, this all tie into and lead up to BrunoCon 45 and launch of BFS season five special 5-EX Day of the Bruno, so FAQ update may be pushed back.