| 14 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I were to use punishing kick on someone grappling me and move them 5 feet away from me, does that break the grapple??
I would say yes - but you might not be able to use Punishing Kick, due to needing to get your leg in there. I'd definitely give you additional penalties to hit besides the standard -2 due to how you need to be set up - probably just double it to -4.
Rules are not clear on such a point.
I would consider allowing either a CMB grapple check for them to hang onto you and drag them with, or a CMD check for the kick to actually push them away from you since you are being grappled.
I'm not sure exactly what it would do, but I'm very much against it auto-defeating grapple.
I'm not sure exactly what it would do, but I'm very much against it auto-defeating grapple.
Why shouldn't it? Freedom of movement does it and with the added benefit of not taking an attack roll and it pops up at around d the same time (lvl 7-8). Im in the camp that says yes, It does break a grapple.
Also remember it is a daily use abilaty that has a CHANCE of working.
Nope, no rules that I know of. There is not even a general rule for what happens when two grapplers are forced to move away from each other and there are many ways to do it (Bullrush, Create Pit, Telekinesis, etc.).
This is entirely up to each GM.
There are many considerations. For example, since neither the grappling rules nor the grappled condition state HOW the grappler is holding, you could literally apply grappling rules/conditions when one person graps another person's arm, and you obviously use them when an anaconda wraps itself around it's prey a half dozen times like a giant scaly spring.
To me, it seems like it would be possible to kick away a guy holding my arm, but not to kick away an anaconda wrapped around and around and around me.
But even if you kick the guy back 5', what happens? The grapple doesn't necessarily break. We do have a rule that if you grapple someone who is not adjacent, you automatically move them to an adjacent square. For example, if a giant octopus grabs/grapples you, it drags you automatically to an adjacent square. What if you kick that octopus back 5'? Maybe it just drags you to the new adjacent square. And if that can work on an octopus, maybe it can work on a person grabbing your arm - you kick them back 5' and you are dragged 5' with them to the adjacent square.
That seems reasonable to me.
But then this is a feat that has CON and WIS prerequisites making this a painfully MAD feat. Worse, it also requires a substantial BAB and a prerequisite feat too. If anybody is going to meet all those prereqs and take this feat, I'd want to let them be a superstar when they use it - especially since it has limited daily uses. My rule would be as above, you might move them back 5' but you probably go with them, but against anything that has less of a hold than the anaconda, you get a bonus CMB check to break free. Heck, I might go so far as to use the same attack roll, so a good Punishing Kick means a good chance to break free.
Totally not RAW, but I don't think any answer is RAW.
IMO, unless their arms are longer than your leg + 5' - it seems to me that thematically, the kick is shoving you back, which means more than just your leg's length - then they can't keep grappling you. YMMV.
| 8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Nope, no rules that I know of. There is not even a general rule for what happens when two grapplers are forced to move away from each other and there are many ways to do it (Bullrush, Create Pit, Telekinesis, etc.).
This is the issue, not this specific case. Many of these actions require no particular "investment" to work in the first place.
It comes down to either Grapple "No Move" restriction being applied only to ones' own actions (not "external forces"), but RAW leaves no mechanism for the strength/CMB/CMD of Grappler (/Pinner) to affect the DC/etc any more than if the target was un-grappled...
And then there is the issue that by RAW nothing actually breaks a Grapple besides being unable to maintain it next turn... whether they are now 5' away, whether they are 15' away but within Grapplers' Reach, whether they are 30' away beyond Grapplers' reach, or whether they beyond Line of Sight of Grappler. Teleport/etc doesn't really change that either.
Likewise, there is no RAW indicating the Grapple is "sticky" i.e. if the Grappler/Grapplee is moved by some force nothing says the target should move "with them", there is only the "move adjacent" clause which happens on the successful grapple check, i.e. not continuously until Grapple is broken.
On the other hand, you can read "No Move" more strongly, i.e. that no movement can happen to Grappled creatures regardless of cause, albeit the grammar difference between Grapple and other movement restrictions e.g. Entangled don't square up with that IMHO...
Not to mentioned it results in crazy results: A Pixy Nat20 succeeding on Grapple vs. Titan means no force in universe can move Titan, nor even the Titan and Pixy at same time. Never mind what happens when two grapplers are on a bridge which is Disentigrated: Do they Fall or Not? What if one Grappler is now in "mid-air" but the other is not?
So basically the rules are borked no matter which way you want it... Errata calls.
I've brought up the broader issue to no avail, but perhaps Paizo's FAQ process is up to the task now?
Well I've FAQd it. Could use some addressing me thinks. ;)
|
| 54 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Might want a clearer, more FAQ-friendly question. Suggestion:
What happens when a grappling creature is forced to move by an effect such as Bull Rush or a pit being created underneath them? Do the creatures move together, does moving the grapplers apart break the grapple, or does something else happen? Does it matter how the movement occurs (for example, a teleported creature breaks the grapple but Bull Rush moves both grapplers)?
I'd say that as long as you remain in the grappling creatures threatened squares after he is moved or the grappled is moved in a mundane way the grapple continues and the grappled moves to the closest available square to the grappler.
Also if one or both creatures lose their footing like a collapsing bridge or a sudden pit trap or whatever, another grapple attempt is made if desired as a free action from the grappler, should the grapple succeed the grappled travels with the grappler or stays with him essentially dangling or being dragged with them.
This sounds pretty good to me.
|
FAQed
There are plenty of situations where only GM input work, too many combos to resolve all in a single FAQ.
other are obvious (disintegrating bridge, both fall, that don't break the grapple by itself).
Other are unclear, like Punishing kick.
As Punishing kick has a limited number of uses each day I would allow it, but it is a GM interpretation, not a hard rule.
Simply put, if one of the two is doing the move-forcing action which would generally act in a way to get someone away from them - Punishing Kick is the only example I can think of, but I'm not conversant with every last thing - then I'd rule it breaks the grapple. If someone else is acting (you Bull Rush the guy grappling your friend) then I might give the friend a bonus to breaking the grapple, but generally it's gonna move both individuals at once, or at most give you another opportunity to try to break the grapple.
Could you try to Bullrush someone if they're grappling you? Seems mechanically similar to punishing kick, and I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't be able to off-hand. Though it would still be a CMB check and only better if you have special bonuses to bullrush.
In any case, it's a tricky situation in general and can vary based on the situation. In most cases, I'd probably go with giving a free check to break the grapple, maybe with a bonus.
Teleport-style effects would be automatic, I think, assuming you can make them go off (concentration checks are hard in grapples). Isn't there a feat that lets you forcefully follow a teleporter while you grapple them?
If you're the grappling initiator on someone, you can already move them (up to half your movement) and then let them go. If you're the target of a grapple, my general rule would be that you can bull rush someone you've been grappled by; it's a matter of getting your feet under you. However, unless you manage to break free of the grapple (with your other standard action), you have no choice but to move with them. This can result in you and your opponent slaloming back and forth across the battlefield, trying to bash each other into walls and the like ...
Simply put, if one of the two is doing the move-forcing action which would generally act in a way to get someone away from them - Punishing Kick is the only example I can think of, but I'm not conversant with every last thing - then I'd rule it breaks the grapple. If someone else is acting (you Bull Rush the guy grappling your friend) then I might give the friend a bonus to breaking the grapple, but generally it's gonna move both individuals at once, or at most give you another opportunity to try to break the grapple.
Physics doesn't tend to work so that I apply force on you and that force pushes us away but somehow I still follow you. (Assuming Newton's laws as RAW...)
|
|
Simply put, if one of the two is doing the move-forcing action which would generally act in a way to get someone away from them - Punishing Kick is the only example I can think of, but I'm not conversant with every last thing - then I'd rule it breaks the grapple. If someone else is acting (you Bull Rush the guy grappling your friend) then I might give the friend a bonus to breaking the grapple, but generally it's gonna move both individuals at once, or at most give you another opportunity to try to break the grapple.Physics doesn't tend to work so that I apply force on you and that force pushes us away but somehow I still follow you. (Assuming Newton's laws as RAW...)
If you push only one of the two objects, that apply only if the link between the two are objects can resist the strain.
Example: if a car hit a moped with enough force, generally the driver and the moped end in different locations, even if initially the driver of the moped was in a stable position on it and gripping the handlebars.
Two creature grappling aren't a single rigid item, they are two linked items, keep together by the grip of the grappling guy, a grip that can be broken by an external force that is strong enough.
Nope, no rules that I know of. There is not even a general rule for what happens when two grapplers are forced to move away from each other and there are many ways to do it (Bullrush, Create Pit, Telekinesis, etc.).
This is entirely up to each GM.
There are many considerations. For example, since neither the grappling rules nor the grappled condition state HOW the grappler is holding, you could literally apply grappling rules/conditions when one person graps another person's arm, and you obviously use them when an anaconda wraps itself around it's prey a half dozen times like a giant scaly spring.
To me, it seems like it would be possible to kick away a guy holding my arm, but not to kick away an anaconda wrapped around and around and around me.
But even if you kick the guy back 5', what happens? The grapple doesn't necessarily break. We do have a rule that if you grapple someone who is not adjacent, you automatically move them to an adjacent square. For example, if a giant octopus grabs/grapples you, it drags you automatically to an adjacent square. What if you kick that octopus back 5'? Maybe it just drags you to the new adjacent square. And if that can work on an octopus, maybe it can work on a person grabbing your arm - you kick them back 5' and you are dragged 5' with them to the adjacent square.
That seems reasonable to me.
But then this is a feat that has CON and WIS prerequisites making this a painfully MAD feat. Worse, it also requires a substantial BAB and a prerequisite feat too. If anybody is going to meet all those prereqs and take this feat, I'd want to let them be a superstar when they use it - especially since it has limited daily uses. My rule would be as above, you might move them back 5' but you probably go with them, but against anything that has less of a hold than the anaconda, you get a bonus CMB check to break free. Heck, I might go so far as to use the same attack roll, so a good Punishing Kick means a good chance to break free.
Totally not RAW, but I don't think...
Most characters with this feat are likely Hungry Ghost Monks, who get it in place of Stunning Fist, so the pre-req bit is unnecessary as a consideration.
Re: anaconda vs grappling dude, the anaconda is clearly pinning the opponent - their grapple would be the initial bite and maybe one or two coils.
Here's the thing - at least IMO, it's tough to hit with force just one target in a closely-entangled two-body system. I agree that if you're hitting them hard enough to move them, the likelihood of them remaining entangled is less likely, but you should also be doing some rather hefty damage.
And I don't agree that a formal ruling is necessary - because each example, every time, is going to be different. In my book, this is and will continue to remain a GM call every time.
Could you try to Bullrush someone if they're grappling you? Seems mechanically similar to punishing kick, and I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't be able to off-hand. Though it would still be a CMB check and only better if you have special bonuses to bullrush.
In any case, it's a tricky situation in general and can vary based on the situation. In most cases, I'd probably go with giving a free check to break the grapple, maybe with a bonus.
Teleport-style effects would be automatic, I think, assuming you can make them go off (concentration checks are hard in grapples). Isn't there a feat that lets you forcefully follow a teleporter while you grapple them?
Since "Grappled creatures cannot move", I'd say you can't use Bullrush, since bull rush is you moving a target. Reposition might work, though.
Simply put, if one of the two is doing the move-forcing action which would generally act in a way to get someone away from them - Punishing Kick is the only example I can think of, but I'm not conversant with every last thing - then I'd rule it breaks the grapple. If someone else is acting (you Bull Rush the guy grappling your friend) then I might give the friend a bonus to breaking the grapple, but generally it's gonna move both individuals at once, or at most give you another opportunity to try to break the grapple.Physics doesn't tend to work so that I apply force on you and that force pushes us away but somehow I still follow you. (Assuming Newton's laws as RAW...)If you push only one of the two objects, that apply only if the link between the two are objects can resist the strain.
Example: if a car hit a moped with enough force, generally the driver and the moped end in different locations, even if initially the driver of the moped was in a stable position on it and gripping the handlebars.
Two creature grappling aren't a single rigid item, they are two linked items, keep together by the grip of the grappling guy, a grip that can be broken by an external force that is strong enough.
Me kicking you away and you managing to not let go would not give a net movement to either of us as all the force applied against you is applied against me in the opposite direction and they negate each other as you and I are linked. This is me kicking you, not a tarrasque careening into one of us but not the other. The kick still hurts but no one has been pushed anywhere, just outward force applied that we are assuming the grappler didn't overcome.
Physics can't really be applied to the combat system directly. We need an actual rules clarification for this.
There isn't any (yet) so I am giving my two cp from a physics standpoint.
Since "Grappled creatures cannot move", I'd say you can't use Bullrush, since bull rush is you moving a target. Reposition might work, though.Could you try to Bullrush someone if they're grappling you? Seems mechanically similar to punishing kick, and I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't be able to off-hand. Though it would still be a CMB check and only better if you have special bonuses to bullrush.
In any case, it's a tricky situation in general and can vary based on the situation. In most cases, I'd probably go with giving a free check to break the grapple, maybe with a bonus.
Teleport-style effects would be automatic, I think, assuming you can make them go off (concentration checks are hard in grapples). Isn't there a feat that lets you forcefully follow a teleporter while you grapple them?
Cannot move != cannot be moved.
The rules do not cover every situation. This is one of them. I will press the FAQ button.
Cannot move != cannot be moved.Since "Grappled creatures cannot move", I'd say you can't use Bullrush, since bull rush is you moving a target. Reposition might work, though.Could you try to Bullrush someone if they're grappling you? Seems mechanically similar to punishing kick, and I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't be able to off-hand. Though it would still be a CMB check and only better if you have special bonuses to bullrush.
In any case, it's a tricky situation in general and can vary based on the situation. In most cases, I'd probably go with giving a free check to break the grapple, maybe with a bonus.
Teleport-style effects would be automatic, I think, assuming you can make them go off (concentration checks are hard in grapples). Isn't there a feat that lets you forcefully follow a teleporter while you grapple them?
Not true
because under grappled is this option "Move: You can move both yourself and your target up to half your speed. At the end of your movement, you can place your target in any square adjacent to you. If you attempt to place your foe in a hazardous location, such as in a wall of fire or over a pit, the target receives a free attempt to break your grapple with a +4 bonus."
I read the grapple conditioned " Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. " As them using the move action to move themselves. Because Boots of escape would be worthless if your cannot move ! understanding prevented all movement.
Thorin, the grappler can already move the individual they've grappled.
This, however (speaking to Gwen Smith) is where you reach a breakdown between 'real and game world' and 'game rules'. If you're both on the ground, legs and arms all tangled up, sure. If you're in a wrestling-style clinch, though, you still both have your feet under you, which would mean that the grappled could force movement by way of bull-rush.
This is why a definitive ruling in this case (o wraithstrike) would be bad. A tabletop RPG is meant to try to frame the possible, give you leeway to do the impossible, and provide the GM reasons for allowing something at one point, then disallowing it at another. This is one of those points: grappling can be done standing, sitting, both of us on the floor; it can be my two arms 'grappling' your two legs, one of us upside down, any of dozens of possibilities. Saying that something with so many variations is one way all the time is like saying there is only one caliber of firearm, one type of bow, one style of bladed weapon - something that clearly just ain't how it is. Allow your GM to decide how things work for each circumstance; feel free to propose, but the GM is there to make things work, and smack you upside the head when you're being a dumbarse rules-lawyer trying to make the system kowtow to your every demand.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pananagutan - A Limited-Ongoing Shadowrun Tale
"Oh, look - it's Go-Frag-Yourself-O'Clock."
New Wyrm!! Now with Twice the Bastard!!
Play the game; don't try to win it, and don't be afraid to fail.
There is no reason why it has to be bad. FAQs only cover specifically what they ask. Also, one reason why people play is because this system has definite rulings. It in no way diminshes the power of thr GM. All he has to do is be clear on whar his house rules are, or state up front that he plays loosely with the rules. There are many groups that enjoy that style of play.
Aaaand there are many players who, given a definitive ruling on a question that has dozens of potential variables, such as the one by weirdo above:
What happens when a grappling creature is forced to move by an effect such as Bull Rush or a pit being created underneath them? Do the creatures move together, does moving the grapplers apart break the grapple, or does something else happen? Does it matter how the movement occurs (for example, a teleported creature breaks the grapple but Bull Rush moves both grapplers)?
... which obviously has dozens of potential answers (e.g. 'something else happens, depending on what the motive force is', etc.), will insist on that ruling being applicable to one - or every - particular example they run into. The answer to the above, given the intelligence the Paizo staff have shown so far, will be 'it all depends' - which makes the answer useless for a FAQ, which suggests to me that they won't bother even answering it as a FAQ. If you require a ruling on this sort of thing, then I suggest you get very, very specific - on which limbs have been grappled, what the positions of the combatants are, what specific movement-inducing action is taking place, and at what angle.
There's a reason grappling rules tend to be the most convoluted rules for any game system; grappling is one of the most convoluted combatative activities in the world.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pananagutan - A Limited-Ongoing Shadowrun Tale
"Oh, look - it's Go-Frag-Yourself-O'Clock."
New Wyrm!! Now with Twice the Bastard!!
Play the game; don't try to win it, and don't be afraid to fail.
That does not make the answer "useless". It might mean some people will ask more questions, beyond the scope of the original FAQ, but that does not make the answer "useless."
Useless means it is of no use to anyone, or it has NO value. However that is not the case.
Many rulings can be asked to be broken down further given the proper corner cases to include some FAQ's that are in place now with more questions generated from them, or questions that will come later.
Also as I said before some things are not covered by the rules, and the GM will have to decide, especially since Paizo does not have the time to answer every possible question. However, Paizo not being able to answer every possible iteration of a rule does not qualify the other questions involving the rule or mechanic as invalid or useless.
It is useless to you. You have yet to state any proof as it(this potential FAQ) being useless objectively since it would at least be useful to whoever would be in this situation.
No, I'm sorry, I have: the question itself is so vague as to have dozens of potential answers. If your question is vague, your answer cannot be anything but vague, and a question that seeks to clarify a ruling must, by default, be asking for clarity. But I'll leave the answering to the people who do such things.
Let's try to come up with some possible rules...
(1) When a character is moved away while grappling, the grapple is automatically broken.
(Might be too easy to break grapples in some cases. For example, bull-rush your friend - who can choose not to resist you - to get him out of harm's way.)
(2) When a character is forcibly moved away while grappling (whether they are in control of the grapple or not), the other party can choose to either break off the grapple or go with them, space permitting, unless the grapple involves extra-dimensional travel.
(Means that an ability that could move one character can move two with no greater effort.)
(3) When a character is forcibly moved away while in a grapple (and extra-dimensional travel is not involved), the creature in control of the grapple can make a new grapple attempt as a free action. If the grapple attempt fails, the grapple ends. If it succeeds, both the creatures are moved, but only half as far. If this would reduce the movement below five feet, there is no movement.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's try to come up with some possible rules...
(1) When a character is moved away while grappling, the grapple is automatically broken.
(Might be too easy to break grapples in some cases. For example, bull-rush your friend - who can choose not to resist you - to get him out of harm's way.)(2) When a character is forcibly moved away while grappling (whether they are in control of the grapple or not), the other party can choose to either break off the grapple or go with them, space permitting, unless the grapple involves extra-dimensional travel.
(Means that an ability that could move one character can move two with no greater effort.)(3) When a character is forcibly moved away while in a grapple (and extra-dimensional travel is not involved), the creature in control of the grapple can make a new grapple attempt as a free action. If the grapple attempt fails, the grapple ends. If it succeeds, both the creatures are moved, but only half as far. If this would reduce the movement below five feet, there is no movement.
#1: No, not a good idea for the reason you stated. Grapple becomes super ineffective if an adjacent ally can just shove you out of it.
#2: Not really practical. This would allow for strange things like a colossal creature grappling a human and then someone shoves the human 15' away (perhaps with a good bullrush) and that colossal creature is forced to move the same distance or let go. Or even more strange, what if it's a non-mobile plant that grapples a victim, like a giant Venus Flytrap - does it have to uproot and move too?
#3: This one I like. Shove your friend out of the way and you force the grappler to make a reactive grapple check (no action required) to hang on.
Now to add to it:
3a: Give a penalty to the reactive grapple check for the distance the grappled victim is moved. Maybe -2 per 5' of movement. So if you can shove your friend 15' away (or shove the grappler 15' away), that puts a -6 penalty on the grapple check for that reactive grapple.
3b: If you try this by moving your friend, and the grappler succeeds on his reactive grapple check and the grappler is forced to move because your friend moved, reduce the total distance by 5' per size category difference. This way you can't bullrush your human friend who is grappled by a colossal monster, shoving your friend back 20' while that colossal monster is forced to stumble along with him. You could reduce the movement distance before dividing (per your suggested rule).
ETA on FAQ incoming in.... ?!?!?!?
There's never an ETA for FAQs. They tell us about them when they issue them and generally not before.
#3: This one I like. Shove your friend out of the way and you force the grappler to make a reactive grapple check (no action required) to hang on.Now to add to it:
3a: Give a penalty to the reactive grapple check for the distance the grappled victim is moved. Maybe -2 per 5' of movement. So if you can shove your friend 15' away (or shove the grappler 15' away), that puts a -6 penalty on the grapple check for that...
I agree. I was thinking about how I would rule the on this
Would it be an autofail if the grappler is plane-shifted away?I agree. I was thinking about how I would rule the on this
#3: This one I like. Shove your friend out of the way and you force the grappler to make a reactive grapple check (no action required) to hang on.Now to add to it:
3a: Give a penalty to the reactive grapple check for the distance the grappled victim is moved. Maybe -2 per 5' of movement. So if you can shove your friend 15' away (or shove the grappler 15' away), that puts a -6 penalty on the grapple check for that...
I would rule that plane shift would only effect the one the shifted. Since he is not in range to grappled the grapple would fail.
ETA on FAQ incoming in.... ?!?!?!?
A recent FAQ answered some basic questions about how the Fly spell works - questions that people had been asking for the last six years. So I'd say you can confidently expect an answer by 2021 at the latest.
Great! And since THIS question has been around since at least 2011:
Can you bull rush an enemy off you in grapple?
That means we just have 2 years left of handwaving/avoiding/evileye'ing PFS players who ask for (any) solid functionality .
Assuming PRPG 2nd Ed. isn't released in the meantime :-)