My question is if a Ring of Freedom of Movement bypasses the wording of the Black Tentacles entry:If you expend two uses of mythic power, the spell creates twice as many tentacles in the same area, meaning each creature in the area is attacked twice per round.
The tentacles can grapple creatures that are immune to grappling if that immunity is from a non-mythic source, but combat maneuver checks to grapple such creatures take a –5 penalty.
This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web. All combat maneuver checks made to grapple the target automatically fail. The subject automatically succeeds on any combat maneuver checks and Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin.
Freedom of movement doesn't state that you're immune to being grappled - just that all attempts to grapple you auto-fail. Based on the power of Mythic Black tentacles, it seems like an oversight to let an ordinary (non-mythic) spell of the same level beat it with no contest.
Considering that all grapples must be initiated with a combat maneuver check...
Going with the simplest explanation, a ring of FoM is not a mythic source, so it would fail against a Mythic Black Tentacles.
There are tons of mythic powers that make standard non-mythic abilities useless.
Considering that all grapples must be initiated with a combat maneuver check...
Yeah, my first thought was, "it should take a -5 penalty, but that's it."
My reasoning is that "auto-fail" is (for most practical reasons) the same thing as "immunity". Thus, the -5.
Considering that all grapples must be initiated with a combat maneuver check...Yeah, my first thought was, "it should take a -5 penalty, but that's it."
My reasoning is that "auto-fail" is (for most practical reasons) the same thing as "immunity". Thus, the -5.
DOES "auto-fail" mean "immunity", though? I'm looking for an official ruling; RAW, not RAI.
What's the difference? Is there any effect that, even upon a failure, applies to you, if something attempts a grapple? I ask, because if there is no mechanical difference, you're splitting hairs that don't need to be split.
For example, the wording of "Weapon Proficiency" feats doesn't actually say that it gives you weapon proficiency, it just negates the -4 penalty for non-proficiency. In fact, non-proficiency notes that the only effect is that it applies a -4 penalty. Hence, there is no reason to look at the feat any differently.
It's a matter of plain English comprehension v. high technical English parsing. The former says, "Yes, you get weapon proficiency, duh." The latter says, "Well, technically it doesn't say 'you get proficiency', thus you might not qualify for other feats or abilities reliant upon proficiency." which directly contradicts how the people who make the rules utilize it in their official products. Hence, English-to-English, it's pretty clear that it does, in fact, give you proficiency, unless you wish to parse it in an odd and non-beneficial way.
Similarly, if grapple automatically fails, and there's no reason to presume you're not immune - because, you know, it automatically fails, and thus you're immune.
Heck, let's look at the wording together.
First, the ring.
Continuous "freedom of movement". Easy.
This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web. All combat maneuver checks made to grapple the target automatically fail. The subject automatically succeeds on any combat maneuver checks and Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin.
The spell also allows the subject to move and attack normally while underwater, even with slashing weapons such as axes and swords or with bludgeoning weapons such as flails, hammers, and maces, provided that the weapon is wielded in the hand rather than hurled. The freedom of movement spell does not, however, grant water breathing.
The only difference I could possibly come up with, is that it says that Escape Artist and combat maneuver checks to escape a grapple or pin automatically succeed, which simply helps clarify that it can be case on someone engaging in a grapple who is already pinned or grappled themselves. Hence, it figures into every useful definition of "immunity" - the only thing that it wouldn't cover is the (very corner) case of paralysis while already within a grapple... except of course it negates magical paralysis.
Further: is there any other ability in the game that states a creature is "immune to grapple" that would not be a mythic source? I'm honestly asking - I can't think of any (a few creatures that would be immune to trip, but not to grapple); hence, outside of this effect or something exceedingly similar (similar enough that it's akin to parsing Weapon Proficiency feat v. Weapon Proficiency class feature being an empty gesture), the wording would otherwise be effectively worthless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Further: is there any other ability in the game that states a creature is "immune to grapple" that would not be a mythic source? I'm honestly asking - I can't think of any (a few creatures that would be immune to trip, but not to grapple); hence, outside of this effect or something exceedingly similar (similar enough that it's akin to parsing Weapon Proficiency feat v. Weapon Proficiency class feature being an empty gesture), the wording would otherwise be effectively worthless.
I was wondering this, until I remembered incorporeal creatures.
From the PRD:
Incorporeal creatures cannot make trip or grapple attacks, nor can they be tripped or grappled.
Do we count this as "immune to grapple" or "grapple not applicable" like tripping a flying creature?
I'd go with "not applicable" because there are already ghost touch and other powers that can remove/bypass that specific ability. Though with augmented Black Tentacles, having the ghost touch ability would be a nice effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tacticslion: I started this thread because, contrary to comprehending plain English, specific wording in the Pathfinder rules are of paramount importance. Half the rules threads on this site are requests to make the wording in specific rules more clear, because as they are, multiple possibilities could be interpreted. This is why the terms "Rules and Written" and "Rules as Interpreted" exist. The presence of the word "may" completely alters how the Urban Barbarian's Rage Class Feature can be interpreted to work.
That aside, you do make a good point with the weapon proficiency feats. And at your question to what else is immune to grapple, I immediately thought if Proteans. However, when I looked them up, under their Defensive Abilities, they actually have Freedom of Movement :P So, I would still like some sort of official ruling, but it's looking like Freedom of Movement does, by default, grant immunity to grapple.
I didn't mean the difference between plain and parse English to be some sort of insult or demeaning. I understand it can come off that way, and I apologize if it did so.
What I mean, though, when comparing plain English v. technical English parsing is to note what the developers have noted themselves on more than one occasion: they don't intend that the rules be a perfectly accurate matrix which is not to be understood in plain English.
In fact, they have asserted that the opposite is supposed to hold true: that you are expected to apply common sense when comprehending the rules.
To that end, if something, for all intents and purposes, equates to something else, unless there's something that I've seen that explicitly moves against it, the rules are trying to say that it's what it equates to.
Otherwise you get very interesting (but nonsensical*) effects like the Proficiency, or the fact that the Darkvision spell allowing a blind person to see... but still taking all the other penalties for blindness. To whit, blindness says:
The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.
... which, you know, makes for an interesting setting or fascinating story elements (I like the idea of "priests" of Razmir using this to "prove" the divinity of their god only to make the once-and-future blind person disappear before it becomes obvious that there's any sort of problem), but at the same time, attempting to justify it hardline RAW is completely nonsensical.
All that said, I'm not trying to tell you that you have to go by RAI.
In fact, I've made numerous arguments to the contrary, and stand by them.
My point is only that, in this case, if you do not accept them as being equivalent, you've got rules text that is supposed to do something that doesn't do what it's clearly supposed to do - it creates a "divide by zero" error, in other words. :)
I like the idea of rules that work instead of rules that don't. Hence my notes above. :D
I was wondering this, until I remembered incorporeal creatures.
From the PRD:
Incorporeal creatures cannot make trip or grapple attacks, nor can they be tripped or grappled.Do we count this as "immune to grapple" or "grapple not applicable" like tripping a flying creature?
I'd go with "not applicable" because there are already ghost touch and other powers that can remove/bypass that specific ability. Though with augmented Black Tentacles, having the ghost touch ability would be a nice effect.
Can you link to where that statement is found on the PRD? The entry for incorporeal I'm seeing says:
Creatures with the incorporeal condition do not have a physical body. Incorporeal creatures are immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Incorporeal creatures take half damage (50%) from magic weapons, spells, spell-like effects, and supernatural effects. Incorporeal creatures take full damage from other incorporeal creatures and effects, as well as all force effects.
Which means they can't be grappled, but because they don't have physical substance to be grappled. If however, you had ghost touch amulet of natural armor you could grapple, and even pin them.
I do however agree that they would stay effectively immune to Mythic Black Tentacles.
It's the Incorporeal special quality, which creatures with the incorporeal subtype gain (as well as any creatures under an effect that gives the incorporeal quality), which is markedly different (though probably not intended to be so) to the Incorporeal condition.
Interesting. That's probably related to the fact that they are, you know, incorporeal, and thus are constantly flying - flying creatures cannot be tripped either, as I recall.
Despite the ability for ghost touch abilities to contact incorporeal creatures, does that make them subject to grappling? It seems like it wouldn't, due to the wording of the special quality.
Also:
In fact, they have asserted that the opposite is supposed to hold true: that you are expected to apply common sense when comprehending the rules.
I wish to be clear: "common sense isn't common" is, in fact, correct. Thus is someone has a question or is confused about something that I have (what seems to be to me a clear) answer for, that doesn't mean they're lacking common sense. They're just lacking my "common" sense (and I, in all probability, theirs).
While I don't agree with the developers that this is necessarily the best way to approach handling the rules (I like the common-sense approach, but that would require toning down the rules-language used a lot, or tightening up or refining other things that they don't seem interested in doing) the reason I work to apply such things and encourage others to do so is that, in the end, that's how their intended to function, and, usually, how they function best.
(That said, as a GM, I'd totally let one of my blinded players use darkvision give themselves temporary vision for 60 ft., since that's what the text says it actually does. :D)
Can you link to where that statement is found on the PRD? The entry for incorporeal I'm seeing says:
Universal Monster Rules: Incorporeal (Ex). Middle of the fourth paragraph.
Incorporeal (Ex) An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it takes only half damage from a corporeal source. Although it is not a magical attack, holy water affects incorporeal undead. Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature (except for channel energy). Force spells and effects, such as from a magic missile, affect an incorporeal creature normally.
An incorporeal creature has no natural armor bonus but has a deflection bonus equal to its Charisma bonus (minimum +1, even if the creature's Charisma score does not normally provide a bonus).
An incorporeal creature can enter or pass through solid objects, but must remain adjacent to the object's exterior, and so cannot pass entirely through an object whose space is larger than its own. It can sense the presence of creatures or objects within a square adjacent to its current location, but enemies have total concealment (50% miss chance) from an incorporeal creature that is inside an object. In order to see beyond the object it is in and attack normally, the incorporeal creature must emerge. An incorporeal creature inside an object has total cover, but when it attacks a creature outside the object it only has cover, so a creature outside with a readied action could strike at it as it attacks. An incorporeal creature cannot pass through a force effect.
An incorporeal creature's attacks pass through (ignore) natural armor, armor, and shields, although deflection bonuses and force effects (such as mage armor) work normally against it. Incorporeal creatures pass through and operate in water as easily as they do in air. Incorporeal creatures cannot fall or take falling damage. Incorporeal creatures cannot make trip or grapple attacks, nor can they be tripped or grappled. In fact, they cannot take any physical action that would move or manipulate an opponent or its equipment, nor are they subject to such actions. Incorporeal creatures have no weight and do not set off traps that are triggered by weight.
An incorporeal creature moves silently and cannot be heard with Perception checks if it doesn't wish to be. It has no Strength score, so its Dexterity modifier applies to its melee attacks, ranged attacks, and CMB. Nonvisual senses, such as scent and blindsight, are either ineffective or only partly effective with regard to incorporeal creatures. Incorporeal creatures have an innate sense of direction and can move at full speed even when they cannot see.
Can you link to where that statement is found on the PRD? The entry for incorporeal I'm seeing says:Universal Monster Rules: Incorporeal (Ex). Middle of the fourth paragraph.
Cool, I was just having trouble finding it myself and didn't know where you were looking.
So, I still stand by my statement. The incorporeal creature can't be grappled because it has no physical body to grab a hold of. Now, since a amulet of mighty fists can technically affect your whole body (as the whole body can be used for unarmed strikes) and ghost touch could be placed upon it, it would be reasonable to rule that an incorporeal creatuer could be grappled under that condition. But, it would still be subject to some table variance.
So, I still stand by my statement. The incorporeal creature can't be grappled because it has no physical body to grab a hold of.
Totally agree!
Now if by some chance you add the Ectoplasmic Spell metamagic feat on top of it, our incorporeal friend (enemy?) is in trouble.