Any size limits on grappling and pinning?


Rules Questions

51 to 74 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

*sigh* Apparently people are reading things into something that isn't there. Which then cascades as more people respond to the misinformed response before it. So let me try again with rephrasing, because quite frankly, these responses are way off target.

My delineation between Camp #1 and Camp #2 was simply an attempt to describe the difference between those that are into the super heroic, high fantasy games where anything is possible if the rolls say they are possible and those that prefer a greater degree of realism and explanation in their games. This doesn't mean you can't grapple a dragon. It doesn't mean you can't fall 200ft and survive. Where did I ever say you can't do it? I said the rules are funny about it, but I've only said RAW says you can do it. So there is no argument there. I was talking about how things are described.

I also didn't say #1 was inferior or that #2 was superior. I didn't recommend a realistic, Grim-n-gritty setting. I haven't suggested EVER any changes to the rules. Nor even ignoring any of the rules. This is a fantasy game. Magic exists. Extraordinary people exist. The supernatural exists. So please stop assuming something I didn't say.

You ask how would I handle a Giant stepping on and crushing a Halfling? The way any GM would handle it. The Giant would have to make an attack roll as normal and if he hits, he deals his damage as normal. If the damage is enough to kill the Halfling, then the Halfling is crushed. If not, then he's not. What is so hard to understand about that? Isn't that realistic? Can't the Halfling dodge aside? Why do you assume that just because I say 'realistic' that somehow the Giant gets to break the rules and gets an auto kill? Where is that implied or written?

A person thrown off a Dragon? He falls on whatever the GM says he falls on; concrete, rocks, water, trees, dandelions, a huge pile of dragon dung, whatever. It's up to the GM. A high fantasy one that wants to portray characters as super-human could say you smash into the rocks and stand right back up again. Whereas a more realistic one would probably describe it more like he fell onto a sand dune or into water or through a tree that broke his fall or some such.

Hitpoints are handled in PF more realistic and not fantastical. Meaning they are subjective. If I have 10hpts and take 10 damage, I'm screwed. I just got run through. If I have 100 and take the same 10 it doesn't mean he ran me through and I'm standing there laughing. That would be fantastical. Realistic is that I've deflected the blow to minimize the injury due to my superior combat ability (i.e. Hitpoints).

I'm not talking about changing rules. Nowhere did I infer that. I'm talking about the difference between saying:

#1 "You fall 200 feet, slam into the rocks, and take 140pts of damage. Since you have 150, you're able to get to your feet."

and

#2 "you plummet off the dragon and fall 200 feet to the ground. Fortunately you crash into a large tree. The branches batter you mercilessly, but they also slow your fall. By the time you slam into the ground you've suffered 140pts of damage. You pull yourself to your feet."

Absolutely no difference in rules. Just style.

Make sense?


Elbedor wrote:

#1 "You fall 200 feet, slam into the rocks, and take 140pts of damage. Since you have 150, you're able to get to your feet."

and

#2 "you plummet off the dragon and fall 200 feet to the ground. Fortunately you crash into a large tree. The branches batter you mercilessly, but they also slow your fall. By the time you slam into the ground you've suffered 140pts of damage. You pull yourself to your feet."

Trust me Elbedor, I understand fully what you're saying. Again, you keep changing the parameters of the scenario. Now I get that you're doing this to find some way to justify surviving such a long, fall. I'm pointing out that Pathfinder in general is a setting that does a better job being representative of Camp 1 Far and above better then it does in representing camp 2.

If a player falls 10,000 feet onto concrete they take 20d6 damage. that's 120 hp at most, and more likely 70.

You keep twisting the scenario into, "well there's a tree, or he's bouncing off rocks". While that is a plausible scenario, it's not the one I'm making. I'm pointing out that the mechanics of the game state that you can fall any distance and only take 120 hp of damage max.

In any setting that's using gritty realism, that'd kill you. My point is that if you're using the pathfinder system to represent gritty realism, your not playing typical pathfinder. there are other, much better, systems out there that represent this type of setting.

I just find it odd that people can have such a large cognitive dissonance on this issue. (I'm not referring to you specifically)

In other words, a halfling grappling a dragon is no more awkward then a person surviving a fall from orbit relatively unscathed. Now we can make house-rules to fit our style any way we like, that is of course all of are prerogative.


Oh, I understood you completely; I know you're not trying to change rules. My point was that there are things in Pathfinder that are not realistic, no matter *how* you attempt to describe them, and thus that style of explanation is not sufficient to make the game even remotely realistic. The absurdly high natural healing rate being one of them.

Or, say, if you're dropped into lava. "superior combat ability" isn't letting you roll with the punches of the lava, there. There's something fundamentally un-realistic about a high level character being able to survive, for a round or two, completely immersed in molten rock. There's no mundane explanation you can give for that.

Take the spell disintegrate; there's no mundane explanation for why such a spell would, well, disintegrate a 1st level fighter, while potentially leaving a higher level one merely wounded. The resistance to the spell is not combat ability.

Or, suppose I'm falling onto a barren wasteland from 500 feet up, with no convenient narrative trees to help my explanation. What then? Are you just saying that high level characters are fundamentally *luckier* when they fall, meaning a bog would form out of nowhere, despite the absence of water in the wasteland up to this point?

I'm all for making explanations more realistic when possible, but there are many cases where it simply is not.

Dark Archive

20d6 is in fact the appropriate damage per the rules, and has even been shown that translated into game-rules, is indeed the correct number to represent the maximum possible velocity an object falling regular gravity can attain. Our characters just happen to be exemplars of their respective races, not the rule. The vast majority of individuals even in a fantasy setting like Pathfinder would not survive it.


Sub Zero, my whole point is that I'm not even discussing anything remotely like "Grim-n-Gritty". I said "realistic fantasy"...meaning the GM's flavors his narration with descriptive text to explain the strange and the weird. No rules are changed. The only difference is that the GM says something akin to you hitting a tree instead of rocks. I'm not saying (and have never said) that you can't hit rocks. If the GM says you hit rocks, then you hit rocks. But what I seem to get back is that it is somehow inferior for a GM to say you hit a tree...which is a ridiculous claim. The GM is free to keep the rules as they are and give any explanation he likes. And that is not "twisting the scenario". That is story telling and narrating an adventure.

I'm not really sure what is so hard to understand about that. I have never implied "Grim-n-gritty" in any of my posts and, frankly it gets hard not to sit here and roll my eyes as people lecture me about something entirely unrelated.

Is it the word "realistic" that is tripping you up? Is that some buzz word in your circles that means "grim-n-gritty"? If so, then I understand the disconnect. So if that is the case, what word would you substitute for it? Namely, you have 2 camps...those that like to play the over the top super heroic where the dice rolls are the dice rolls and they don't want or care about an explanation of how such a thing is possible and those that like to hear details of what those rolls mean and how they've come to be. It's the beauty of story telling. Pathfinder caters to both styles very easily. To say otherwise is to short-change the game quite severely.


Neonpeekaboo wrote:
Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan.. now I want to see a Halfling Tetori pin a Titan with a Wuxi Fingerhold...............

Skadoosh.

That's pretty much how I imagine that playing out. "Hey, did you know Titans have a major nerve cluster on their heel, right about ... HERE?!"


Zhayne wrote:
Neonpeekaboo wrote:
Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan.. now I want to see a Halfling Tetori pin a Titan with a Wuxi Fingerhold...............

Skadoosh.

That's pretty much how I imagine that playing out. "Hey, did you know Titans have a major nerve cluster on their heel, right about ... HERE?!"

HA. And that about sums up what I mean by other than over the top Fantastical. Nice narration! :)


Elbedor wrote:
Sub Zero, my whole point is that I'm not even discussing anything remotely like "Grim-n-Gritty". I said "realistic fantasy"...meaning the GM's flavors his narration with descriptive text to explain the strange and the weird. No rules are changed. The only difference is that the GM says something akin to you hitting a tree instead of rocks. I'm not saying (and have never said) that you can't hit rocks. If the GM says you hit rocks, then you hit rocks. But what I seem to get back is that it is somehow inferior for a GM to say you hit a tree...which is a ridiculous claim. The GM is free to keep the rules as they are and give any explanation he likes. And that is not "twisting the scenario". That is story telling and narrating an adventure.

I feel like were talking past each other. I'm not saying that it is inferior GMing, I'm point out that the pathfinder system does not lend itself well to your realistic setting. Of course your welcome to do just that, I'm merely pointing out that pathfinder has many inherent absurdities if you look at it realistically.

To show this example I'm pointing out that falling miles onto concrete is easily survivable at certain levels. Instead of acknowledging that yes, this is in fact a silly rule in a realistic setting, you instead change the scenario.

I was never looking for you to counter my example by presenting a different example, I was intending to show how the rules don't map as easily to realistic system as they do to the heroic fantasy system.

Why you don't get this is beyond me.

Elbedor wrote:

I'm not really sure what is so hard to understand about that. I have never implied "Grim-n-gritty" in any of my posts and, frankly it gets hard not to sit here and roll my eyes as people lecture me about something entirely unrelated.

Is it the word "realistic" that is tripping you up? Is that some buzz word in your circles that means "grim-n-gritty"? If so, then I understand the disconnect. So if that is the case, what word would you substitute for it? Namely, you have 2 camps...those that like to play the over the top super heroic where the dice rolls are the dice rolls and they don't want or care about an explanation of how such a thing is possible and those that like to hear details of what those rolls mean and how they've come to be. It's the beauty of story telling. Pathfinder caters to both styles very easily. To say otherwise is to short-change the game quite severely.

I was using gritty being synonymous with realistic.

Again, this isn't tripping me up at all. I was pointing out that it is silly to point to one rule like "halflings can grapple giants, therefore it make no sense" and "this same setting allows people to fall miles and survive". My point is that while you can make a realistic setting fit within the pathfinder system, it is not as smooth as the heroic system.

I then pointed out that if a realistic system is what your looking for, there are other RPG's that do it better. I'm not telling you how to play, I was merely pointing out that there is better options out there for that type of setting.

As an example I could just as easily have pointed out that a level 20 invulnerable rager can take direct hits from a commoner with a long sword forever and literally take no damage at all.


Fair enough. I guess we're talking past each other. I get what you're saying and I see where "realistic" may have been the sticking point for some. When I said "realistic fantasy" I was saying heroic as opposed to the Super Heroic. But perhaps the misunderstanding is that you think I'm saying Gritty and I think you're demanding Super Heroic as the only way. But if we're both talking Heroic, then maybe we're actually talking about the same thing. Doh!

As for Halflings grappling giants, yes I think it's still silly as I do someone falling a thousand feet and surviving. But the rules say they do, and so they do. I'm not arguing that.

But then as I think of it, the real image I'm finding silly is a 3ft person leaping 15ft in the air onto the back of something 150 times his mass and carrying it down to the floor. I'd think that giant picks things out of his teeth that are larger than the halfling and yet it is pinned and helpless...

...but what I don't find silly at all is Zhayne's beautiful descriptive narration of how just such a thing can be done. :P

Scarab Sages

Quote:

yes I think it's still silly as I do someone falling a thousand feet and surviving. But the rules say they do, and so they do. I'm not arguing that.

It happens. It's not probable, and real world survivors didn't live by virtue of being high level, but that makes it more plausible for survival in the heroic fantasy setting.


Imbicatus wrote:
Quote:

yes I think it's still silly as I do someone falling a thousand feet and surviving. But the rules say they do, and so they do. I'm not arguing that.

It happens. It's not probable, and real world survivors didn't live by virtue of being high level, but that makes it more plausible for survival in the heroic fantasy setting.

Yes and no. People do fall that far and live but people don't fall that far and walk away all dandy, that person was in a coma for 27 days in a hospital and broke both their legs.

Then again people also don't get mauled by a bear or in our case a dragon and walk it off casual like either.

That's the real disconnect the game isn't trying to simulate real life because it makes it unnecessarily complicated as a system and so dissuades people from picking up the game. So rather than have a simulationist damage chart with a bunch of conditional effects the closest thing the game does to this is the called shots rules which are both optional and not particularly deep.


I agree. Simulating real life in a game could be a real headache with all the rolls and charts and injuries and recoveries to track. Not to mention the paperwork. I want to play a game filled with Dungeons and Dragons and acts of heroism. Not Tax-Exempt Applications and Mortgage payments. :P


Elbedor wrote:

I agree. Simulating real life in a game could be a real headache with all the rolls and charts and injuries and recoveries to track. Not to mention the paperwork. I want to play a game filled with Dungeons and Dragons and acts of heroism. Not Tax-Exempt Applications and Mortgage payments. :P

Exactly, but at the same time I think if you're going to include Wizards who with the konami code to the universe on their tongues, the power of their mind, and some random trinkets can create a wormhole or create fire out of nothing you kind of just have to give up on the idea that this game is going to be anything but extraordinary so it becomes a question of should we mix in a bunch of lower class plebeians among the privileged few who control the universe at a wave of their hands or should we ensure that everyone can feel epic and beyond the norm.

Sometimes this means the fighter jumps out of low earth orbit hurtling towards the ground like a rocket to land with a giant earth shuddering crash like a meteor only to see as the dust settles he pulls his glowing superheated sword from the ground and rushes into combat seemingly unscathed because if he couldn't do that what would be the point?

I just think if your going to go for a realistic fantasy setting you'd be better off if you look into one which excludes magic altogether or at least runs it very differently from PF or D&D do because in this universe it just doesn't make sense to draw "realism" lines in the sand, at least for me.


gnomersy wrote:
Elbedor wrote:

I agree. Simulating real life in a game could be a real headache with all the rolls and charts and injuries and recoveries to track. Not to mention the paperwork. I want to play a game filled with Dungeons and Dragons and acts of heroism. Not Tax-Exempt Applications and Mortgage payments. :P

Exactly, but at the same time I think if you're going to include Wizards who with the konami code to the universe on their tongues, the power of their mind, and some random trinkets can create a wormhole or create fire out of nothing you kind of just have to give up on the idea that this game is going to be anything but extraordinary so it becomes a question of should we mix in a bunch of lower class plebeians among the privileged few who control the universe at a wave of their hands or should we ensure that everyone can feel epic and beyond the norm.

Sometimes this means the fighter jumps out of low earth orbit hurtling towards the ground like a rocket to land with a giant earth shuddering crash like a meteor only to see as the dust settles he pulls his glowing superheated sword from the ground and rushes into combat seemingly unscathed because if he couldn't do that what would be the point?

I just think if your going to go for a realistic fantasy setting you'd be better off if you look into one which excludes magic altogether or at least runs it very differently from PF or D&D do because in this universe it just doesn't make sense to draw "realism" lines in the sand, at least for me.

Is this directed at me specifically? Or are you just using the general "you" to everyone? Because I've already explained that I don't have a problem with the rules as they are written. In fact, I've been very clear as to what I meant by "realistic fantasy" (or heroic if you prefer) and how it had nothing to do with Grim-n-Gritty, yet I get the feeling some folks on here are still drawing that erroneous conclusion. They see the word "realistic", disregard the very next word next to it and assume "gritty". If I wanted a Gritty game, I would have said "gritty" and then would have either avoided PF all together or house ruled it to death in an E6 or E3 game. The whole discussion upthread started with my mentioning that I think a Halfling pinning a Giant is silly. I didn't say it should be against the rules. I never implied anything about the rules other than unequivocally stating that RAW supports the OP that there is no size limit to grappling. Others have agreed with me as well. But I don't see how this all implies that just because I find it silly that I MUST somehow mean I only like "gritty" games.

Let's say my statement was in error. There are not 2 camps. There are 3. Those that like Super-heroic; fighters falling like meteors and rising like gods from their self-made craters. Those that like heroic; fighters that tumble hundreds of feet from a dragon's back to crash amongst the trees who manage to clamber to their feet. And those that like gritty; the fighter either falls to his death or he smashes into the ground, an unconscious broken shell hovering near death.

PF is wonderful in that it can support the first 2 options by RAW. There is no rule difference between the two, but only style. It all depends on what type of game the GM wants to run and what the players enjoy. I'm not knocking those that like Super-heroic and I'm not saying such a style is against PF RAW. If that's what you enjoy, then go for it. But I get this distinct impression based on people's responses, that I'm somehow wrong to enjoy only Heroic styles as if PF is either Super-heroic or nothing. Yes, it can be played Super-heroic. But it can also be played just Heroic without breaking RAW.

Personally, I find Heroic styles to be much a much richer source of role-playing and story-telling than Super Heroic or Gritty.

But again, that's just my opinion. :)


Elbedor wrote:

Is this directed at me specifically? Or are you just using the general "you" to everyone? Because I've already explained that I don't have a problem with the rules as they are written. In fact, I've been very clear as to what I meant by "realistic fantasy" (or heroic if you prefer) and how it had nothing to do with Grim-n-Gritty, yet I get the feeling some folks on here are still drawing that erroneous conclusion. They see the word "realistic", disregard the...

Using "you" as the general term for everyone, technically I should use "one" if I wanted to be clear and precise in my writing but I'm lazy and these are forum posts yknow?

I get what you're saying but at the same time you need to have people bound by "heroic" standards in the same universe as people who do magic on an entire higher level than Merlin and how many people remember the random shmucks who followed him around other than King Arthur and Lancelot(okay on these boards probably a lot of people but in the average populace not so much).


gnomersy wrote:
Using "you" as the general term for everyone

Good to know. Sorry if I misunderstood. My wife has accused me of the same thing. heh


Elbedor wrote:


But before we go any further, let's just make sure we understand who is arguing what here. I'm not saying the rules are or should be other than they are. The OP asked if it was legal. My answer was yes. Then I interjected opinion because frankly I find it funny that a 35lb person can pin a 5000lb person. Or reverse that, that a 5000lb person can't lift a 35lb person off him. That's like my 8yr old son with top end gear pinning a Stegosaurus. It becomes a question of mass, not just strength or wrestling technique. But again I'm not saying the rule is or should be different. Just that there are places where they can get a little silly.

If I were to debate the rules, I'd do so elsewhere. But as this is the Rules section, the only valid answer to the OP is "yes, there is no size limit for grappling and pinning".

I'm sorry to ask again as you have stated the rules clearly, but could you point me to where in the pathfinder books it says there is no size limit to grappling and pinning? I'm asking because I play pathfinder society games, and many of the venture captains and lieutenants have told me repeatedly that you can't grapple a creature two sizes larger and up, and you can't pin a creature one size larger and up.

I keep reading on the forums that there are no rules about size limits on the forums, but GM's keep telling me otherwise.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
Golgathar wrote:

I'm sorry to ask again as you have stated the rules clearly, but could you point me to where in the pathfinder books it says there is no size limit to grappling and pinning? I'm asking because I play pathfinder society games, and many of the venture captains and lieutenants have told me repeatedly that you can't grapple a creature two sizes larger and up, and you can't pin a creature one size larger and up.

I keep reading on the forums that there are no rules about size limits on the forums, but GM's keep telling me otherwise.

PRD wrote:

Combat Maneuver Bonus: Each character and creature has a Combat Maneuver Bonus (or CMB) that represents its skill at performing combat maneuvers. A creature's CMB is determined using the following formula:

CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier

Creatures that are size Tiny or smaller use their Dexterity modifier in place of their Strength modifier to determine their CMB. The special size modifier for a creature's Combat Maneuver Bonus is as follows: Fine –8, Diminutive –4, Tiny –2, Small –1, Medium +0, Large +1, Huge +2, Gargantuan +4, Colossal +8. Some feats and abilities grant a bonus to your CMB when performing specific maneuvers.
[...]
Combat Maneuver Defense: Each character and creature has a Combat Maneuver Defense (or CMD) that represents its ability to resist combat maneuvers. A creature's CMD is determined using the following formula:

CMD = 10 + Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifier

The special size modifier for a creature's Combat Maneuver Defense is as follows: Fine –8, Diminutive –4, Tiny –2, Small –1, Medium +0, Large +1, Huge +2, Gargantuan +4, Colossal +8. Some feats and abilities grant a bonus to your CMD when resisting specific maneuvers. A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature's AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD.

There are penalties for trying it on a larger opponent (and bonuses for the reverse), but a small tripping a large is only at a net -2 (ignoring STR and DEX differences). This section details the effects of size. No outright bans present.


Golgathar wrote:
Elbedor wrote:


But before we go any further, let's just make sure we understand who is arguing what here. I'm not saying the rules are or should be other than they are. The OP asked if it was legal. My answer was yes. Then I interjected opinion because frankly I find it funny that a 35lb person can pin a 5000lb person. Or reverse that, that a 5000lb person can't lift a 35lb person off him. That's like my 8yr old son with top end gear pinning a Stegosaurus. It becomes a question of mass, not just strength or wrestling technique. But again I'm not saying the rule is or should be different. Just that there are places where they can get a little silly.

If I were to debate the rules, I'd do so elsewhere. But as this is the Rules section, the only valid answer to the OP is "yes, there is no size limit for grappling and pinning".

I'm sorry to ask again as you have stated the rules clearly, but could you point me to where in the pathfinder books it says there is no size limit to grappling and pinning? I'm asking because I play pathfinder society games, and many of the venture captains and lieutenants have told me repeatedly that you can't grapple a creature two sizes larger and up, and you can't pin a creature one size larger and up.

I keep reading on the forums that there are no rules about size limits on the forums, but GM's keep telling me otherwise.

There isn't anything that says the size limit for a grapple. If your venture captains and lieutenants are saying this, it might be a PFS ruling. You can also feel free to ask them where it says this restriction as grapple mentions no restriction on size.


CrystalSpellblade wrote:


There isn't anything that says the size limit for a grapple. If your venture captains and lieutenants are saying this, it might be a PFS ruling. You can also feel free to ask them where it says this restriction as grapple mentions no restriction on size.

I'm sad to say I have asked the leaders where it says there is a size restriction in the source books and my only answer is, "it's in there". It's quite frustrating because I read so many posts online stating otherwise. And PFS uses the books as the rules for society play.

I do appreciate GinoA posting the rules as are shown on PRD, and I have found that section in the Core Rulebook, but unless I have a section from a specific book, specifically about size, I won't make any headway with changing people's minds.

Was there a size limit in D&D 3.5? Many of the veteran role players in my area have been playing D&D since the red box, but I wonder if they are confusing differences between D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder rules.


Golgathar wrote:
CrystalSpellblade wrote:


There isn't anything that says the size limit for a grapple. If your venture captains and lieutenants are saying this, it might be a PFS ruling. You can also feel free to ask them where it says this restriction as grapple mentions no restriction on size.

I'm sad to say I have asked the leaders where it says there is a size restriction in the source books and my only answer is, "it's in there". It's quite frustrating because I read so many posts online stating otherwise. And PFS uses the books as the rules for society play.

I do appreciate GinoA posting the rules as are shown on PRD, and I have found that section in the Core Rulebook, but unless I have a section from a specific book, specifically about size, I won't make any headway with changing people's minds.

Was there a size limit in D&D 3.5? Many of the veteran role players in my area have been playing D&D since the red box, but I wonder if they are confusing differences between D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder rules.

I think I may have found my own answers. I never thought to look in the appendixes. The Combat Maneuver section does state how to calculate how to do the math for them, which does not limit on size, except for trip. The appendixes give more specific information about the grappled and pinned conditions and those do not specify size limits either. Hopefully that will give me enough to go on to be convincing.

Shadow Lodge

Golgathar wrote:


I'm sorry to ask again as you have stated the rules clearly, but could you point me to where in the pathfinder books it says there is no size limit to grappling and pinning? I'm asking because I play pathfinder society games, and many of the venture captains and lieutenants have told me repeatedly that you can't grapple a creature two sizes larger and up, and you can't pin a creature one size larger and up.

I keep reading on the forums that there are no rules about size limits on the forums, but GM's keep telling me otherwise.

Bull Rush wrote:
You can only bull rush an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you.
Drag wrote:
You can only drag an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you.
Overrun wrote:
You can only overrun an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you.
Reposition wrote:
You can only reposition an opponent that is no more than one size category larger than you.
Trip wrote:
You can only trip an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you.

Dirty Trick, Disarm, Grapple, Steal and Sunder do not list size restrictions.

If your GMs cannot cite why they are imposing a size limitation, please direct them to this post. If they continue to be obstinate, please post in the PFS forums.

Grand Lodge

Actually, they may be confusing the Grapple and monster Grab ability, as Grab does include a size limit.

Grab (Ex) If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. Unless otherwise noted, grab can only be used against targets of a size equal to or smaller than the creature with this ability. If the creature can use grab on creatures of other sizes, it is noted in the creature's Special Attacks line. The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself. A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature's descriptive text).

Creatures with the grab special attack receive a +4 bonus on combat maneuver checks made to start and maintain a grapple.

Format: grab; Location: individual attacks.

Size limitation area italicized.


I think people are trying to defend the martial/caster disparity here? Why should a level 20 character be restricted to the possible or plausible simply because they're not a spellcaster? Why is it so ridiculous that a character built to grapple can pin a giant when no-one would bat an eye at someone focused on summoning calling up an entire army of demons?

51 to 74 of 74 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Any size limits on grappling and pinning? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.