| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The best I can do to help you for now is to point out that if Group 2 is correct, then the wording in Pounce is wasted word count, since it never applies. Paizo doesn't tend to waste word count. Also, in Group 2's interpretation, you have actually changed the wording to ONLY, when the rules actually say TYPICALLY. So Group 2's interpretation requires us to assume that Pounce has a sentence that does nothing and to change the wording of Rake from typically to only.
Thus, Group 1's interpretation seems to me to be surely correct.
The ability text is pretty clear.
Pounce (Ex)
When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).
On a pounce the lion gets 1 bite, 2 claws, and 2 extra claws from rake. If the bite succeeds in a grapple and it maintains the grapple on its next turn, it can Rake again.
The qualifying action text for Rake is the general rule that is being superseded in the situation of Pounce. You can have a creature that has Pounce and Rake without having an attack that adds Grab. Think about it this way... the lion charges at you, leaps into the air and pounces on you. Even if you're not knocked down it still is hitting you with all four of its legs/claws and able to bite you as it slides back down onto the ground.
DM Group 2 is flat out wrong. As AerynTahlro posted, the ability is clearly defined.
If they need a source page it is on Bestiary 1 page 302.
Explain it to them this way:
Rake allows you to use it when your BEGIN the turn in a grapple.
But, Pounce also allows you to use Rake during a Pounce.
Pounce is providing an exception to when you can use Rake.
reyyvin, the basis for GMs making the "maintain before rake" ruling may the bolded section below and thus it may be RAW. I believe it is pretty clearly RAI.
Rake (Ex) A creature with this special attack gains extra natural attacks under certain conditions, typically when it grapples its foe. In addition to the options available to all grapplers, a monster with the rake ability gains two free claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe. The bonus and damage caused by these attacks is included in the creature’s description. A monster with the rake ability must begin its turn already grappling to use its rake—it can’t begin a grapple and rake in the same turn.
Those options are things like Move, Damage, Pin. You only get those options after you maintain the grapple. Thus, if you are not maintaining the grapple you cannot perform the rake attacks.
As for the non-grapple attacks being at -2 hit, the grappled foe is also at -4 dexterity to they usually balance out (unless your attacks are also dexterity based in which case you are at -4 hit).
Rake states that "In addition to the options available to all grapplers, a monster with the rake ability gains two free claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe." Rake does not stipulate that this is only available to an attacker. In a situation of 2 cats (or other creatures with Rake) involved in a grapple with each other, both get their rake attacks, even though one is the 'attacker' controlling the grapple and one is the 'defender.'
Having the grappled condition and being the grappler are not the same thing.
In a grapple both participants gain the grappled condition. Only one of them (the one in control of the grapple) is the grappler.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does James Jacobs, Paizo's Creative Director, do it for you?
Yeah; you're overanalyzing the thing.
Pounce lets you make a full attack when you charge. This full attack includes rake attacks, if the creature has rake attacks.
Rake, on the other hand, is a type of natural attack that normally a creature can't use during a full attack or standard attack; something has to happen to allow a rake to take place. Normally, this means when the creature is grappling a foe, but when something has pounce AND rake, pounce lets you rake as well, even if you aren't grappling a foe.
Rake is indeed meant to represent the hind legs, generally. So in order to use a rake, a creature has to basically be all over its target... as in the case when it grapples, or when it pounces onto something.
reyyvin, I failed to include the defender's options. Thank you for adding those.
However, regarding your point about when you have to make your maintain check the RAI that many people (including myself) understand is that such things are made at the start of your turn.
As a general game design principle anytime you have to make a each round type check it is almost always the start of your turn.
Thus, maintain needs to also be at the start of your turn and if you choose not to maintain at that point you are no longer grappling and cannot perform your Rake attacks.
That is probably the reason most GMs rule in that direction but a FAQ on when you need to perform your maintain check would be nice.
It seems to me that the lion in the example would indeed have to bite and grab in order to get the rake attacks, since rake also says this:
"gains two free claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe."
Pounce lets begin the turn without already having a grapple, but doesn't change the need for the grapple to exist before you have a valid target for a rake attack.
Dave,
Pounce is an exception, it provides an entirely different scenario in which you can perform the rake attacks.
Lets put it another way, if we use your interpretation the Griffon (Bestiary p168) or the Sphinx (Bestairy p257) cannot use their's Rake attacks on a Pounce.
Why? Because they do not have Grab but they do have Pounce and Rake.
Summary: you do not need to be in a grapple to make rake attacks while pouncing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Situation:
The DM says that James Jacobs is NOT a "rules" guy therefore his interpretation is meaningless. He maintained that his own interpretation that a creature with pounce and rake MUST grapple to get the rake attacks is the correct one even though I pointed out that the rake rule mentions that rake attacks TYPICALLY happen when grappled and it does not say that it is the ONLY time it can happen.
My question - who is considered a "rules" guy and has there ever been a ruling by such a person. I would have thought James Jacobs would have been sufficient especially given the wording (i.e. "typically" happens)but that is not the case.
I fear that I am out of luck with society play unless there is such a ruling
Walk your GM through the following scenario:
Pounce can only be done on a charge.Charge is a full round action.
You cannot be in a grapple and charge.
Ask him to then explain what purpose the pounce ability has in regards to rake given the above? The only explanation that fits is that pounce eliminates the normal requirement for rake of being in a grapple before hand.
Outside of that, for PFS play hit up your venture captain - or higher if need be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
James Jacobs answer should be sufficient. The DM is being arrogant if he wants to overrule Paizo staff who take the time out on the message boards to answer rules questions.
Does your VC also state that "James is not a rules guy"? Ultimately, I would keep bumping this up the PFS chain.
Both your GM and the VC are clearly in the wrong here.
Unfortunately, being in the wrong doesn't stop some people from holding to their guns until their last breath. Even though interpretation 1 is both logically and rationally correct, if your DM and VC refuse to listen there isn't much you can do. Sometimes the world sucks.
You can try to move it up the chain of authority, as has been suggested, but ultimately even in PFS the GM can make (poor) rulings stick.
One thing to add. Our VC's interpretation is similar to this DM.
So unless I can get a ruling from a "rules" person at Paizo (whoever that could be) I will have to decide whether the situation is irritating enough to impact my scenario sign up decisions.
If your VC is being an ass-hat, your only hope is Mike Brock.
My VC doesn't really take rule questions. And when he gets them, he puts them up for debate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing to add. Our VC's interpretation is similar to this DM.
So unless I can get a ruling from a "rules" person at Paizo (whoever that could be) I will have to decide whether the situation is irritating enough to impact my scenario sign up decisions.
Well, you could always try telling him Rogue Eidolon told you that Group 1 interpretation from your thread is correct. I'm fairly well known around here and pretty rulesy, who knows, maybe he has heard of me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pounce states:
You Pounce, you get to make Rake attacks. Not every creature with Pounce and Rake attacks even has the Grab ability; the following monsters all have Pounce and Rake without Grab:
So your GM group 2 is basically saying that half a dozen monster entries need to use an ability they don't have to get their attacks? Despite that being a direct contradiction of the insight given by a Paizo employee and requiring them to add words to the Pounce ability that don't exist for it to work the way they want it to? Show them the above examples. They are mainfestly wrong.
I'm in the corner that DM 1 is correct, the specific rule of pounce allowing rakes and overrides general rule of rakes and grab and whatever else. Even seems that it's written clear enough, as the game tells you that specific overrides general and pounce specifically says rake away.
...the following monsters all have Pounce and Rake without Grab:
[coughs] [nudges SSalarn] [nods towards Ally's bite attack] ;)
One thing to add. Our VC's interpretation is similar to this DM.
So unless I can get a ruling from a "rules" person at Paizo (whoever that could be) I will have to decide whether the situation is irritating enough to impact my scenario sign up decisions.
PFS has it's own adjudication procedures and this issue is clear in the eyes of the vast majority of reasonable players so I can't imagine those wouldn't work fine, this doesn't 'need' a Paizo staffer or the rules teams time.
It's also, in all but a few extreme cases (which generally will have dozens of posters calling them out), a bad idea to come on the Paizo forums expecting an answer if you call Paizo staff out as "needed" at any point. Even if they would have answered you, it puts them in a spot they will consider not answering you just to avoid setting a precedent. They're open about that.If your VC is being an ass-hat, your only hope is Mike Brock.
My VC doesn't really take rule questions. And when he gets them, he puts them up for debate.
This. It's not a little rule, it covers many summoned creatures, bestiary monsters, and some popular class archtypes. If you're getting dinged on it left and right in your area, push it up the PFS chain. The rule's written clear enough you'll eventually get the clarity you need put to the right people.
|
|
I'm in the corner that DM 1 is correct, the specific rule of pounce allowing rakes and overrides general rule of rakes and grab and whatever else. Even seems that it's written clear enough, as the game tells you that specific overrides general and pounce specifically says rake away.
...the following monsters all have Pounce and Rake without Grab:
[coughs] [nudges SSalarn] [nods towards Ally's bite attack] ;)
/facepalm
Okay, 5 out of 6 ain't bad....
|
|
Yeah, I'd strongly suggest taking this over to the PFS forum at this point. The majority of people understand that Pounce overrides the general restriction on needing to grapple to Rake, it's very clearly spelled out in the rules in no uncertain terms, so at this point what you need is for someone in PFS to let your VC and GM know that they need to stop houseruling and run the ability as written and intended.
Repost your question in the PFS forum referencing this thread and the link to James Jacobs.
I think Mike Brock is still the PFS guy, so he might chime in over there.
|
One thing to add. Our VC's interpretation is similar to this DM.
So unless I can get a ruling from a "rules" person at Paizo (whoever that could be) I will have to decide whether the situation is irritating enough to impact my scenario sign up decisions.
This sort of thing has now happened to two or three of my characters in pfs-typically well after several levels of scenarios have been played. All not those characters are now 'illegal', require rebuilds, or whatever despite FAQ entries and the like clearly stating that my case is correct. Even the VC of my area has ruled in favor of whatever makes me have to remake my characters or replace feats. I am now consistently running into the point of not being able to play at all because too many characters are stuck in rebuild mode and they have played all the scenarios being offered...for weeks at a time.
So my sign up decisions have been impacted without me even getting to make a choice. I literally can't participate (my other character is brand new and too low level to play in the few scenario's being offered that I have not played and several are for 8+).
But despite that, when this happens to your second or third character, you'll probably end up like me and simply start wondering if you want to sign up at all-even if you can.
I feel for you. It sucks when you know you're right, have a large support base showing you are right, have common sense, simple rules and plenty of examples (creatures with pounce and rake but no grab) showing you are right, and staff taking time out to prove you are right only for the VC or DM in society to still not only disagree but rule against the preponderance of evidence. It's just a big wth slap in the face.
Well, you could always try telling him Rogue Eidolon told you that Group 1 interpretation from your thread is correct. I'm fairly well known around here and pretty rulesy, who knows, maybe he has heard of me.One thing to add. Our VC's interpretation is similar to this DM.
So unless I can get a ruling from a "rules" person at Paizo (whoever that could be) I will have to decide whether the situation is irritating enough to impact my scenario sign up decisions.
Heh.
Actually the PF rules for Pounce and Rake include the 3.5 FAQ on the subject.
No, it does not. Paizo literally can't use those, for legal reasons.
Yes they can. Check out the Defending weapon FAQs. They are word for word the same.
For Pounce and Rake they incorporated the FAQ ruling into the actual rules obviating the need for another FAQ. (Unlike with Defending)
There have been many cases where they ruled differently than the 3.5 faq. and when people threw hissy fits over the differences, they've said the same thing I just said. The defending faq is coincidence
Actually the PF rules for Pounce and Rake include the 3.5 FAQ on the subject.
Making the same ruling us not the same as incorporating their FAQ.
Actually the PF rules for Pounce and Rake include the 3.5 FAQ on the subject.Making the same ruling us not the same as incorporating their FAQ.
The actual rules are different. The new (PF) rules include what was in the old (3.5) FAQ. And that clarification is the only difference.
The 3.5 FAQs on open content material are open content the same way that errata are. Splatbook FAQs run afoul of copyright issues.