In a recent game one of my PCs grappled a foe but then got Repositioned into flank by him. The resulting full attack worth of sneak attacks from the grappled enemy's buddy was way more effective than just breaking free from my PC's grapple. I guess it was a pretty clever move on the DM’s part, and it got me thinking about what other combat maneuvers might or might not work while you’re grappled and whether or not any of them should be able to break the grapple.
- Bull Rush: It doesn’t seem like being grappled would stop you from pushing somebody. I wonder if pushing them away would break the grapple though. If a Bull Rush would break a grapple it seems like a potentially superior method compared to just making a CMB check to escape the grapple since you’d also create some distance. If Bull Rush wouldn't break the grapple could you move with the foe even though you normally wouldn't be allowed to move while grappled?
- Drag: Once again, can you move while grappled if you’re making a CMB check to move somebody? It certainly works if you're the one controlling the grapple and you make a Grapple check to move the foe. I'm not sure if other maneuvers should work too.
- Reposition: If you used the last 5 feet of movement to force the enemy into a space which isn’t adjacent to you would that break the grapple? (if not guess you just wouldn’t be able to move the enemy away)
- Trip: I guess you could attempt to Trip an enemy who is grappling you. Even if this didn’t break the grapple it would make it tougher to maintain and easier to escape later.
Anyhow, since most creatures can’t make AoOs while grappling it seems like the grappled foe is free to attempt just about any maneuver without suffering an AoO even without the right feats. If you had feats which grant a bonus to a specific sort of check it might be to your advantage to use the maneuver if possible though. I wonder if other folks have run into similar situations in their games and how they might have ruled on them.
Seems like the grappled condition itself expects you to make maneuvers:
"A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple."
I've had the whole "how does bull rush interact with grapple?" thing come up at my own table. Fighter wanted to bullrush a grappling creature off of his wizard-bro. This seems like 100% house rules territory to me.
No, not "100% house rules territory".
Making a call about how the existing rules are supposed to be understood is not the same thing as creating an entirely new rule to replace those existing rules.
I do agree that this is very open to confusion and therefore equally open to GM interpretation, but on the surface, yes, you can certainly use any combat maneuver that doesn't require you to move (e.g. Drag). Some might not be very applicable like Disarm - unless somehow you're being grappled by a weapon like a man-catcher or your foe is holding a weapon AND grappling you.
If you can move your opponent to a non-adjacent square, it stands to reason that this breaks the grapple, but since that is no implicitly stated, each GM will have to dice if (A) it breaks the grapple or (B) it cannot be done while the guy is grappling you.
If, after your CMB, your opponent is still adjacent to you then you didn't break the grapple (since no maneuver explicitly states that it breaks grapples). So even if you trip your grappler, he simply falls prone in the adjacent square and is still grappling you.
All the above is how I interpret it to work; each GM may see it differently of course.
Don't forget that all maneuvers except Grapple take a -2 penalty, so maybe avoiding the penalty and just breaking the grapple is safest (more likely to succeed). Also, breaking the grapple doesn't provoke an AoO while most of the other choices would normally provoke.
No, not "100% house rules territory".
Semantics? I'm always up for some antics!
We seem to be in agreement on this thing. There's a pretty good thread about the grapple/bull rush thing over here:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qxem?Bull-Rush-vs-Grappled#1
and here:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2khe4?Can-grapplers-be-bull-rushed#1
and here:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ms7q?Does-Bull-Rush-Overrun-or-Trip-affect-a#1
Bottom line is that these interactions require interpretation. Call it what you will.
Most creatures can't make AoOs while grappling, so I think you'd be safe trying whatever maneuver you wanted on somebody who is grappling you. The -2 penalty on other maneuvers is a good catch and makes sense. I think you'd have a -2 on other attacks though it often doesn't matter since the creature grappling you is down 2 AC due to grappling.
|
I suppose there are a few ways to handle the Bull Rush. RAW might not make as much sense unless you can see everyone's turn happening simultaneoulsy.
The Bull Rush is resolved by RAW. It doesn't have to move the grappled individual. At this point make a note where both grapplers may seem to be, but realize they are both still under the grappled condition, even if they are not adjacent. On the next grappler's turn, depending on who is next in initiative order, either the either the original grappler makes a successful grapple check, and by RAW moves his opponent to an adjacent square, or the grappled individual breaks the grapple, and remains in the square he started his turn in.
|
|
That stands to reason only in terms of the static initiative order. Given that all the action is happening simultaneously, it is just as likely that the both grapplers are moved.No, not "100% house rules territory".
Making a call about how the existing rules are supposed to be understood is not the same thing as creating an entirely new rule to replace those existing rules.
I do agree that this is very open to confusion and therefore equally open to GM interpretation, but on the surface, yes, you can certainly use any combat maneuver that doesn't require you to move (e.g. Drag). Some might not be very applicable like Disarm - unless somehow you're being grappled by a weapon like a man-catcher or your foe is holding a weapon AND grappling you.
If you can move your opponent to a non-adjacent square, it stands to reason that this breaks the grapple, but since that is no implicitly stated, each GM will have to dice if (A) it breaks the grapple or (B) it cannot be done while the guy is grappling you.
Another thought I had was that every 5' you were moved, your opponent might get a free opportunity to break the grapple. Otherwise you move with himIf, after your CMB, your opponent is still adjacent to you then you didn't break the grapple (since no maneuver explicitly states that it breaks grapples). So even if you trip your grappler, he simply falls prone in the adjacent square and is still grappling you.
All the above is how I interpret it to work; each GM may see it differently of course.
Don't forget that all maneuvers except Grapple take a -2 penalty, so maybe avoiding the penalty and just breaking the grapple is safest (more likely to succeed). Also, breaking the grapple doesn't provoke an AoO while most of the other choices would normally provoke.
|
|
I agree with posters on the other thread that if you wish to help a friend out of a grapple a better option is to aid another. The best option is to pound the opponent with your great sword. By RAW I think the first brief analysis I gave ends up having little benefit but is within the rules. There is no rule that says if two grapplers are distanced they automatically break the grapple. If they are distanced, then the question is does one of them reestablish or take control of the grapple, and thereby pull the opponent into an adjacent square; or does one or the the other break the grapple and thereby each remains in the square they find themselves.
In effect the Bull Rush has exactly the effect it has by RAW and is of no use to breaking a grapple (it's up to the grapplers). This makes sense because Bull Rushing is part of a charge and two opponents grappling are very very difficult to push just one of them. Believe me I know from experience these guys are locked together and pushing just one and not the other is not really an option in real life. You can hit one or the other, you can try to hold one of them and not the other (aid); but running full out from 10' away and bearing down on just one of them in neigh impossible.
[EDIT] I guess the bull rush could buy you a round in that the opponent would have to reestablish the grapple and pull you adjacent, rather than causing damage or pinning on her next turn.
@rainzax - Yeah, the attacking foe "should have been" grappled and unable to 5 foot step into flank, but the CN Barbarian (perhaps not surprisingly) failed to stick to the plan and tried to KO him with an unarmed strike instead (which had basically no chance of working). Don't mess around with the Men from Leng!
There is no rule that says if two grapplers are distanced they automatically break the grapple.
Well, you know, except the reach rules. A normal human grappling another human when one of them is approximately 10' away (non-adjacent with one empty square between them) is going to find his arms are just way too short to maintain that grapple. Period.
Because normal humans don't have reach.
E.g. successfully moving the grappled guy to a non-adjacent square out of the grappler's reach means the grappler cannot attack his target. Grappling is combat, CMB rolls are attacks - they cannot be made if you cannot reach the target.
If they are distanced, then the question is does one of them reestablish or take control of the grapple, and thereby pull the opponent into an adjacent square; or does one or the the other break the grapple and thereby each remains in the square they find themselves.
If you try to grapple a foe who is outside of your reach it automatically fails; you cannot even sensibly attempt the CMB. I suppose you could stand in your space and pretend, but no roll is necessary for that, and your intended victim can safely ignore your pretense.
Since you don't have REACH to the target, you cannot reestablish the grapple.