Yes, you could escape a grapple with this.
Since is a supernatural ability it is not stopped.
You are unable to move in a grapple but you can take move equivocal actions.
It never says you have to move feet, it counts as 5 feet of movement.
No, he needs to be able to move 5 feet, which he can't.
No, he needs to be able to move 5 feet, which he can't.
Whjere does it say he needs to move 5 feet?
It says it takes up 5 feet of movement, but does not say you are moving.
There are feats and other abilities that will prevent teleportation dimensional movement, but grappling isn't one of them in this case.
Dimensional slide I believe would let him out. Similar to the conjuration teleportation school ability:
Shift (Su): At 1st level, you can teleport to a nearby space as a swift action as if using dimension door. This movement does not provoke an attack of opportunity. You must be able to see the space that you are moving into. You cannot take other creatures with you when you use this ability (except for familiars). You can move 5 feet for every two wizard levels you possess (minimum 5 feet). You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.
Shift has been widely accepted to get you out of grapples.
Though...I'm now actually recalling some reason why Dimensional Slide doesn't get you out that was given when the arcanist first came out.
Edit: Now I see it, the way it's written the arcanist needs to take a move action and move. Or at least that's the implication.
Prepare to revisit the argument about whether movement is actually required.
Dimensional slide requires you to step through. Dimension door/shift transports you instantly. Stepping through requires you to be able to move. It has a number of advantages over shift (such as not ending your turn unless you have Dimensional Agility) but escaping grapples is one advantage shift has.
Expect table variation on this.
Shift is a different power. It allows you to change position as a swift action and limits what you can take along.
Dimensional Slide is "used as part of a move action or withdraw action" both of which are specific game terms. "Grappled creatures cannot move", notice this is different than saying they can not take a move action.
As written, drawing or sheathing a weapon would allow you to utilize the Dimensional Slide. Since you can do that in a grapple, it is not completely unreasonable to argue that by RAW you can use Dimensional Slide to escape a grapple. It is also not completely unreasonable to argue that the text is referring to Move as the Move Action and therefore can not use Dimensional Slide to escape the grapple.
As I said, expect table variation.
It is also not completely unreasonable to argue that the text is referring to Move as the Move Action and therefore can not use Dimensional Slide to escape the grapple.
As I said, expect table variation.
Exactly this.
By a strict reading of raw, performing some sort of action as a move action would allow you to get out of the grapple.
But I think the intention when you read the ability is using a move action to move, which cannot be done while grappled.
So RAW vs RAI...
Expect table variation.
I've ruled in the past that Dimensional Slide does not work to get out of a grapple, as from context I believe "as part of a move action" is intended to mean "as part of a move action to move". I'm basing this on the fact that Dimensional Slide otherwise only works with the Withdraw action, that it costs movement to use it, and the description of the ability itself.
With that said, I do think the rules text can be read in more than one way.
The problem is that you can't tell if the text is talking about the "move action" or the "action of using move". This is complicated because withdraw is a standalone term like move, and yet it is referred to as a "withdraw action" in the text. So, if withdraw is referred to as a "withdraw action", then maybe move is being referred to as a "move action".
At any rate, expect table variation. My feeling is that the intention is that a move action is a move action, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if a FAQ came out that clarified it was otherwise.
Mark Seifter has commented on the matter, for what that's worth:
It wouldn't work; you're grappled and thus can't move into the rift you opened up.Yeah, this would be the Move Action known as the move action (the first action under the Move Action category on page 183). And if that doesn't confuse you yet, I have some race traits and racial traits too!Following on from this, can an Arcanist use this ability as a means of escaping from a grapple?
Resoundingly no.
Crimeo...Mark himself weighed in on the matter. Give it up.
I think Mark is wrong on this one. He didn't design the Arcanist, after all... IIRC, he wasn't even part of the Paizo staff when the ACG classes were written.
Meh... I usually ban Arcanists anyway...
If they want to stop it from working then word the text so it is undeniable. Say the character must 5 foot into the crack, bam. Definitive.
Since they did not say it that way. I am left with my understand it is a move action like drawing a weapon.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
used ALL types of move actions as valid for things that occur "as part of a move action" and nobody ever bats an eye.
I'd bat some eyes to you! If you were in a game with me!
It doesn't say you need to move to use it. It says you need to do it as part of a move action.
True, but it says you need to use it as part of a move action and since it says how many feet it expends, that limits it to move actions to move a distance. So you wouldn't be able to do a move action weapon draw and use it. But moving 10 feet and using 5 additional feet for this, would work.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Since they did not say it that way. I am left with my understand it is a move action like drawing a weapon.
Ultimately you may be left with table variance, because there will be tables (like mine) where the GM won't allow you to do so. End of discussion.
Not because they hate the rule, but because they don't believe the rule works your way and need to follow the rules as they interpret them. Otherwise known as RAW.
This is probably why nobody official weighs in on rules questions anymore. Because when they actually do everybody ignores them if they aren't on the same side.
I think that is a mistake. I think the world would be better if they officially answered more questions here either in forum posts or in FAQ.
The main reason used to say this should be done is "so you don't have to scour forum posts for answers" but it doesn't work that way. We the forum users will collectively remember and answer via links to forum posts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To weigh in, every ability in the game that lets you do something as its own action all say "as a [type] action". This ability, instead, says "as part of a move action". This means the ability is limited to move actions that you could already make. In addition, it goes on to talk about this action taking up 5 feet of movement from that action. There is only one move action in the game that involves feet of movement. This seems pretty clear-cut to me.
Since they did not say it that way. I am left with my understand it is a move action like drawing a weapon.Ultimately you may be left with table variance, because there will be tables (like mine) where the GM won't allow you to do so. End of discussion.
Not because they hate the rule, but because they don't believe the rule works your way and need to follow the rules as they interpret them. Otherwise known as RAW.
This is probably why nobody official weighs in on rules questions anymore. Because when they actually do everybody ignores them if they aren't on the same side.I think that is a mistake. I think the world would be better if they officially answered more questions here either in forum posts or in FAQ.
The main reason used to say this should be done is "so you don't have to scour forum posts for answers" but it doesn't work that way. We the forum users will collectively remember and answer via links to forum posts.
As long as the DM can provide a logical reason why they understand it that way. Saying I do not like it it is my table variance is not.
I have had DMs not allow me to drag an ally out of combat because there were no rules for it, and refused to accept to use drag. That does not make it right.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
As long as the DM can provide a logical reason why they understand it that way. Saying I do not like it it is my table variance is not.
The GM might have a logical reason, but if someone is firm on their interpretation and unwilling to accept the GM might read it differently they might not feel the GM has a logical reason. It doesn't make the GM's reason any less logical. To him.
As long as the DM can provide a logical reason why they understand it that way. Saying I do not like it it is my table variance is not.The GM might have a logical reason, but if someone is firm on their interpretation and unwilling to accept the GM might read it differently they might not feel the GM has a logical reason. It doesn't make the GM's reason any less logical. To him.
Having and providing are two different circumstances.
It's pretty obvious from reading the ability that the intention is that you need to move. One can rules-lawyer almost anything in this game, but deep down I think they know.
Don't be that guy.
It's still an very good ability. Also keep in mind that arcanists can have this *and* the Shift ability with various arcana.
I think the text is vague and could be taken either way, but Mark sounded pretty sure, so I think the intent is pretty clear. So, play it however you want in your group, but if something official comes out, it will almost certainly agree with Mark. Try not to complain if you think you got "nerfed".