| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Say my character attempts to break up a grapple between an ally and an enemy. He wishes to do so by bull rushing either his own ally or the enemy far enough that his ally is no longer within melee reach of the foe (keep in mind grapple pulls the other to the grappler, so this might take quite a check result to pull off).
1. If he successfully separates the two enough, did he just break up the grapple?
2. Does the enemy grappler get a grapple check to try and "hold on" (if I rush my ally) or "drag the other guy with him" (if I bull rush the enemy)?
2. a) Does it make much difference, other than the CMD I need to beat, whom I choose to bull rush? Such as for whether the enemy gets an opposed check or not?
2. b) If the enemy does get a grapple check to oppose it, who is he rolling against? My bull rush result? My ally's grapple check or CMD? Must he beat both? Something else?
3. Does it make a difference if the enemy has the Grab special attack, or similar? By that I mean, normally you can not use grapple out of turn (such as on AoOs), even Rapid Grappler only makes it a swift. But with Grab and anything like that, you CAN grapple out of turn, thanks to having it as a "rider effect." So would the enemy having Grab change the answer to anything?
Let's face it this one isn't exactly covered by the rules.
The rules do cover you trying to help break a grapple. +2 with an aid another check, which is weak at best. I'd very hesitant to allow the use of another combat manuever to break a grapple that would likely have a better chance of success than aid another.
I'd rule that if you tried to bull rush either I would treat them as one target and resolve it as if you tried to bull rush both of them. Bull rush vs enemy's CMD with a -4 penalty.
This tactic would only really be useful if you push the pair into a postion where the enemy would be hurt but you friend would not, such pushing them into lava if your friend was fire resistant.
I realize it's not quite covered. It just seemed like an interesting solution to an age-old problem and was curious how people here would interpret it. :)
Anyway, as far as your suggestions...
Why can't you bull rush only one target? Especially since there is no rules basis at all I see that would ever having you bull rushing two targets simultaneously.
Why is the ally forced to go along for the ride? You'd hate for another maneuver to break someone out of grapple (I don't know why...), but you're ok w/ forcing someone who wasn't even targeted w/ bull rush to be forced to move with it automatically?
Well, don't take this personally, but to put it bluntly, it's kinda meta-gamish. Doing so is playing the rules rather than the game. In the end, you are still attemting to help an ally escape a grapple.
The rules cover helping your friend escape a grapple. You make an aid another check, a melee attack vs AC 10. So, if you really want to do a bull rush to aid another, I suppose I would let you use your CMB vs a CMD of 10.
As I said above, I think if you allow a bull rush to break up a grapple, it is the better option. You break the grapple now as oppossed to on your friends turn, your friend doesn't need to spend an action either, its your CMD, not your weak little friends CMD. If it is a better option then why didn't they just write the rules that to say that you could use a CMD to free your buddy (to be honest I wish they had).
There are rules for bullrushing multiple enemies. "If there is another creature in the way of your bull rush, you must immediately make a combat maneuver check to bull rush that creature. You take a –4 penalty on this check for each creature being pushed beyond the first. If you are successful, you can continue to push the creatures a distance equal to the lesser result. (PFRPG 199)" Not really suprised you haven't heard of it because it very seldom comes up unless you are fighting large and small creatures often.
The ally would be forced to go along for the ride because the enemy controls the grapple (I'm assuming this is the case). Just as the enemy pulls the opponent adjacent on the initial grapple, the ally must move adjacent to the enemy.
Now, if that were not the case and the ally was grappling the enemy I would allow the ally to end the grapple and you could push the enemy as far as you wanted without bring along your friend.
To support the idea of bull rushing them both: the Bull Rush section mentions "If there is another creature in the way of your bull rush, you must immediately make a combat maneuver check to bull rush that creature. You take a –4 penalty on this check for each creature being pushed beyond the first. If you are successful, you can continue to push the creatures a distance equal to the lesser result."
An RAI would state that someone involved in a grapple with your target is "in the way" of your attempt (based on grappled condition as opposed to tactical position on the map). Using that, the rule then states your successful bull rush would move them both (note the word "creatures" which you continue to push). I'd say that makes a case for it being all or nothing.
And since both characters have the grappled condition, they would have a penalty on their CMD to resist your bull rush, which would offset the penalty on the 2nd target and make it easier to succeed. Think of it like two people wrestling: it would be very difficult to push only one person, since they are continually moving around trying to gain advantage over the other one. But if you wanted to push them both over (like a rugby pile) then that's much easier. But they'd both go in whichever position you push them, since they are locked up.
Your right Tim better not let that combat maneuver do it.
Better to full attack and kill the grappler or inflict a status condition with a feat or spell. Why are these ways of breaking up he grapple fine but not a bullrush or a drag? Is it because it moves them? There are plenty of ways to break a grapple better than Aid Another.
Better to full attack and kill the grappler or inflict a status condition with a feat or spell. Why are these ways of breaking up he grapple fine but not a bullrush or a drag? Is it because it moves them? There are plenty of ways to break a grapple better than Aid Another.
Anyway, Stream wanted an opinion and I gave one. Meh.
The rules were changed when Pathfinder came out and defined how to deal with multiple grapplers, they use the aid another action. While all the ways you mention are effective with eliminating the threat to your buddy, they don't involve multiple grapplers.
In general, if the rules give a way to deal with a specific situation, I tend not to allow other methods to handle the same situation. That seems to lead to endless arguments about which set of rules to apply in a particular situation. Better to have one rule.
You want to break the grapple, use aid another per the rules.
You want to kill the enemy, use the rules for melee attacks.
You want to cast a spell, use the rules for magic.
Well, don't take this personally, but to put it bluntly, it's kinda meta-gamish. Doing so is playing the rules rather than the game. In the end, you are still attemting to help an ally escape a grapple.
I see it the exact opposite. It is more than plausible physically/realistically that you could try to Bullrush one target away from the other... Probably that should be more difficult than normal Bullrush somehow, we don't have the exact mechanics for this, but THAT is a rules issue, not realism of whether it is even remotely possible to attempt. If two halfling commoners are going at it (grappling), should no force in the universe truly be able to separate them?
That gets into the fundamental question here, which is really more broadly relevant than just 'Bullrushing one Grappler away from the other Grappler': the no movement restriction of the Grapple condition. It isn't 100% clear if it means 'you cannot move (yourself)' or if it means 'you may not be moved by any force', including gravity (floor collapsing beneath one or both Grapplers). We can look at the 'stronger' version of Entangle (anchored) to see wording that means the latter. IMHO, the RAW for Grappled seems closest to the former (only restricting self-movement).
If that is true, then RAW there is no other limitation, you only have to beat the target's CMD, the other grappler's CMD/CMB has nothing to do with it. That's pretty stupid IMHO, and it would be pretty easy and reasonable to say you have to beat the (Grappled) CMD of the grappler who is really opposing you (or the higher of them, if both grapplers are enemies), also adding in the difference of the target's Size Mod if it is higher than the opponent grappler's (extra mass to move), and probably some other factor to account for it being more difficult to break the grapple... And/or the enemy grappler could get an AoO to 'hold on'... but none of that is RAW.
Also broader than just this issue, per RAW, even when you Bullrush or otherwise move one Grappler away from the other, nothing ends the Grappled Condition... Even if one Grappler Teleports away to another planet, the Condition only ends when it is not Maintained on the next round. That's pretty ridiculous, and I house-rule that if one target is no longer in the threatened reach area of the other, that the Grapple immediately ends. But RAW, it doesn't matter, and certainly nothing gives any special importance to the 'threatened/reach area'. (Of course, the other Grappler would need to Move to Maintain the Grapple, and the Bullrusher would very likely threaten them and be able to take AoO preventing them from doing their job)
As mentioned, the RAW does cover Bullrushing two targets, but that really only applies when the Bullrush 'line' passes thru both of them, it shouldn't be used otherwise IMHO. Realize that per RAW, nothing about Grappled continually 'maintains' the grapplers adjacent to each other (or 'sticks them together'), they are moved adjacent ON A SUCCESFULL GRAPPLE CHECK, but for the rest of the round nothing is keeping them adjacent per se... so if the 'Bullrush line' isn't causing them to collide and both be moved, per RAW they shouldn't be kept 'stuck together' when the line doesn't move thru both Grapplers. Of course, even when you ARE Bullrushing them into one another (line passing thru both Grapplers), that itself runs into the 'no movement' issue about the Grapple condition.
I've tried to FAQ this issue several times previously, to no avail. RAW, nothing says Bullrush doesn't work, and saying NO external force can move a Grappled target is pretty unrealistic, but the RAW doesn't really offer reasonably 'realistic' mechanics to differentiate a Bullrush vs. a Grappled target vs. a non-Grappled one. I gave some reasonable house-rules to use, as for what happens in PFS, who knows... I would just rule it by treating it as a normal Bullrush with no modifiers, that's the most straight forward application of RAW (unless you want Grapplers to float in mid-air indefinitely when the ground collapses beneath them).
@SoS: If you are understanding my post, I suggest boiling down the question to a more consise and direct one which is more appropriate for a FAQ. Basically, the 'no move' clause of Grapple, the conditions for Grapple ending (no threat/reach?), and the details of Bullrushing (or otherwise moving) one or both Grapplers.
I will FAQ that... Sorry if I can't write it up myself, I feel like I post enough FAQ questions, yet few end up answered even though nobody really comes up with solid RAW based answers.
I saw we just get Jiggy to post all FAQ threads he seems to be able to garner numbers quite proficiently.
I suggest watching a game of American football and seeing how many times someone tries to bull rush someone grappling someone else, and what happens.
I also want to see what happens when Halflings with 1 STR from STR Damage weakly trying to grapple each other are hit by a Magus Titan's Bullrush with True Strike and 20 other Titans Aiding Another.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea of bull rush as a way of breaking grapples as a third party. I also think there's no conflict with Aid Another; they're different approaches.
Aid Another means that you're helping your mate get free; he's doing the big work, you're just lending a hand.
Bull Rush means you're doing the heavy lifting, because he's probably the wussy wizard who couldn't do it himself even if the whole party was using Aid Another, and you're the wrestler-fighter.
So. System. I propose the following (and this is not RAW, I know, but I'm trying to make this corner case work);
To break a grapple, you can try to BR to increase the distance between controller and prisoner beyond the controller's reach. If you succeed at that, the grapple ends immediately.
So you BR either controller or prisoner, but against the controller's CMD because he's the one resisting your attempt.
If your BR pushes prisoner away from controller, or controller away from prisoner, beyond the controller's reach, you've succeeded.
If your BR pushes people, but not beyond the controller's reach, the prisoner is then moved so that he's adjacent to the controller again (normal grapple positioning), like snapping back on an elastic band. This movement doesn't provoke.
This mechanic makes significant use of the line in the BR maneuver that states that for every 5 by which your CMB check exceeds enemy CMD, you can move the target an additional 5ft.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea of bull rush as a way of breaking grapples as a third party. I also think there's no conflict with Aid Another; they're different approaches.
Aid Another means that you're helping your mate get free; he's doing the big work, you're just lending a hand.
Bull Rush means you're doing the heavy lifting, because he's probably the wussy wizard who couldn't do it himself even if the whole party was using Aid Another, and you're the wrestler-fighter.
So. System. I propose the following (and this is not RAW, I know, but I'm trying to make this corner case work);
To break a grapple, you can try to BR to increase the distance between controller and prisoner beyond the controller's reach. If you succeed at that, the grapple ends immediately.
So you BR either controller or prisoner, but against the controller's CMD because he's the one resisting your attempt.
If your BR pushes prisoner away from controller, or controller away from prisoner, beyond the controller's reach, you've succeeded.
If your BR pushes people, but not beyond the controller's reach, the prisoner is then moved so that he's adjacent to the controller again (normal grapple positioning), like snapping back on an elastic band. This movement doesn't provoke.
This mechanic makes significant use of the line in the BR maneuver that states that for every 5 by which your CMB check exceeds enemy CMD, you can move the target an additional 5ft.
Hmm, this sounds the most reasonable to me so far. So, regardless of who you rush, the foe's CMD would be used since he doesn't want to you break the grapple. Makes sense. Who you rush would then mostly be a condition of the lanes of movement available to you.
@Quandry: I'll consider trying to write up a proper FAQ-able post, but I'm not sure I'd be satisfied simplifying it to a single question.
|
|
@Stream: and size. If the dragon's holding the halfling, you may get into trouble bull rushing the dragon because he's too big to push around. But you can try to move the halfling.
But indeed, movement lanes are a very big thing here because you have to have a BR vector that actually pushes the ally away from the enemy.
This might be one of those cases where the 10 to 15ft diagonal comes in handy...