Can a pinned creature attack its grappler?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 132 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:
As for you calling a creature grappling an edge case, it certainly isn't as edge as you make it out to be.... Many... are large or larger.... A huge creature with grab could certainly pin you and move 15 feet away.
Initiating and Maintaining a Grapple are things that are done when you are adjacent to a creature.

If you look at the grappling charts, the only time you have to move a creature adjacent is upon a successful grapple. It does not have that requirement to maintain.

But I don't wish to have that rules argument with you. For the sake of argument we can say it is as you propose - that the Grappler pins and moves away.

Quote:


Grapple wrote:
If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails).

So, the situation you are talking about is a creature with greater Reach than his opponent Initiating a Grapple, Moving away while still controlling the Grapple because you say after moving your opponent adjacent to you upon Initiating the Grapple, you are then free to Move off so long as you are within your Reach. Then on your next Round, you Maintain the Grapple again, again moving the creature adjacent to you, this time Pinning your opponent, and again moving 15' away from your opponent, still controlling the Grapple.

I'm dubious of your getting away with doing this at a PFS table, although technically, I'm not sure this is illegal.

But again, if this is legal to do, then what you are describing is a creature using superior Reach to avoid being Threatened by an opponent, even while Grappling and Pinning him.

That doesn't mean that a Combat Maneuver is not an attack that happens in melee and therefore a melee attack.

Thats exactly what it means.

You are proposing that your attempt to escape a grapple is a "melee attack"

a). When you do not have a weapon.
b). When your opponent is not in any square that you can reach even if you did have a weapon.
c) When Paizo has specifically ruled that you cannot attack a body part.

It wouldn't matter if your opponent were 100 squares away - you are somehow equating your ability to escape a grapple with a melee attack.

So even while you could attack one creature - a hundred squares away and NOWHERE/NO ONE else - you are somehow saying you threaten and should qualify as flanking?

Really? What is the opposing square pray tell?

Furthermore, you are hand waiving away the requirement that you must be able to make an attack into a *square*.

You are trying to make the false equivalence that attacking a person is the same as attack a square.

As for the rest of it - the situation I outlined is perfectly legal - and happens somewhat infrequently - but it happens.

Quote:

Threatened Squares

You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.

Scarab Sages

Scott - Tommy quoted it in his last message, and I quoted it a couple of times up thread. The Threaened Squares section contains the sentence, “If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.” If you are unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares.


LOL

Melee Attack is a fairly understood term (outside present circles apparently.

It goes along with terms like Ranged Attack.

Melee Touch attack.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently, we've been playing Aid other all wrong.

Quote:


Aid Another
In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent. If you’re in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action.

Who knew that when it said Melee attack it really means - attempt to escape a grapple.

Wonder what else we've been playing wrong....


Oh I know..

Apparently Desparate Battler.

You know

Quote:


Benefit: When no ally is within 10 feet of you and you are not receiving benefits from the aid another action, you gain a +1 morale bonus on melee attack and damage rolls.

Combat Trick

Source PPC:WMH

Note If using the optional Stamina Pool rules, the following trick may be used with this feat.

Combat Trick: You can spend 2 stamina points to gain the benefits of Desperate Battler even while an ally is within 10 feet of you (but not when receiving the benefits of the aid another action).

Since melee attack = escape grapple. Guess it means +1 to escape grapples.

But gee, I really wonder why AoMF doesn't apply.

[sarcasm]


I think this makes more sense if we back out a bit....

The contention is that Grapple is a melee attack, and you can make it, so you can attack them, and thus you threaten

Let's talk about trip instead. Both are combat maneuvers that you can do without a weapon, so it has many useful parallels. But it is also something you CAN do as an AoO...

Can a person, without improved unarmed strike, and no weapons, attempt to trip someone walking past them without tumbling, as an AoO? No, because they do not threaten. Could they trip them on their turn in exactly the same situation? Of course.

So, either everyone threatens whenever they could attempt a trip maneuver on their turn, or the ability to make a weaponless combat maneuver is not sufficient to threaten anyone.


Yeah, I would say desperate battler applies to grapple checks.

Scarab Sages

The ability to make a weaponless combat maneuver is not enough to threaten.


Ferious Thune wrote:
The ability to make a weaponless combat maneuver is not enough to threaten.

Anyone who disagrees with this, such as claiming grapple does, would need to argue that grapple is somehow a special case, or that unarmed people threaten almost always. That's my point.


Thats kind of the point I was trying to make.

There are all kinds of "actions" that qualify as "attacks" per the "invisibilty" standard.

For example, spitting on someone would probably qualify as breaking invisibility. But it isn't a melee attack.

When you make a grapple attack, if you don't have improved grapple, you provoke *because you are unarmed*. If you are unarmed (per the rules for threatening) you don't threaten a square nor make an AoO.

Yet somehow Scott is trying to qualify this as a *melee* attack.

Scarab Sages

Well, there's a difference between a melee attack and an armed melee attack. I actually agree that a combat maneuver is a melee attack. If you're trying to grapple someone, and your ally flanks with you, you should get the flank bonus. But you don't provide a flank bonus to your ally. You only need to make a melee attack to gain a flank bonus, but you need to threaten to give a flank bonus to your ally.

If you're attacking with an unarmed strike, and you don't have Improved Unarmed Strike, you're still making a melee attack. So you can get the benefit of a flank bonus. But you do not threaten, so you do not grant a flank bonus to anyone else. It's the same situation for a combat maneuver.

Scott's mistake is in thinking that *all* melee attacks are *armed* melee attacks (or just not realizing that being armed is a requirement to threaten).

Finally, having Improved Grapple or Improved Trip does not make grapples and trips count as armed attacks. Improved Unarmed Strike specifically makes unarmed strikes count as armed. The combat maneuver feats do not have the same language. They remove provoking, but they don't make you threaten with a maneuver. Now, Improved Grapple has Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite, so that only comes up when you're able to ignore prereqs, but it is an interesting artifact of the rules. Improved Trip could run into that situation more often, since it does not require Improved Unarmed Strike. But then, you can make a trip attempt with any weapon, so you don't have to do it unarmed.


We agree up to the point that armed melee attacks are necessary to threaten.

We agree that you would not provide a flank bonus to your ally.

But you still have the same edge case problem that scott does. If the grappler is 15ft away, how is attempting to break a grapple a melee attack?

You can attempt to hit an opponent - thats a melee attack.
You can try to hit an opponent with a spell. Thats either a melee attack or a melee touch attack.
You can hit someone at range: ranged attacked
You can hit touch ac at range: ranged touch attack.

So you and I agree that making the attack while pinned you do not threaten because you are not armed.

But I go further - you ALSO don't threaten because you threaten *squares* into which you make an attack. You can't attack the square or any occupant thereof except the grappler -so you don't threaten.

And I would go still further. Breaking the grapple is not done with a weapon - so you don't threaten the grappler.

Scarab Sages

Oh, sorry. I'm not saying or convinced that the roll to break a grapple is a melee attack. I'm not entirely convinced that it's not, either. But a roll to initiate a grapple is definitely a melee attack and can gain from the benefit of flanking. Otherwise the Dirty Fighting feat is very strangely written, as it increases your flanking bonus if you have the Improved maneuver feat or lets you not provoke instead of getting your flanking bonus if you don't have the Improved maneuver feat. So that, at least, is assuming that you can gain the benefit of flanking with a maneuver.

In most circumstances, the creature grappling you isn't going to be 15' away, because when you are grappled, you're automatically pulled to an adjacent square. That's part of the grapple rules. There are probably creatures or weapons out there that have an ability to grapple and keep you at range. In that case, you wouldn't get a flank bonus, because you can only attack out to your reach, so you wouldn't be in a position that qualified as flanking. A creature or weapon being able to have you grappled and 15' away from the creature has an advantage that a creature that has to pull you adjacent doesn't have.

To put it another way, if something is grappling you from 15' away, you can break the grapple, but you probably wouldn't be able to reverse the grapple, because you can't reach the creature. Normally when you're rolling to break a grapple, you have the option to reverse it, so in those cases, it's more clearly an attack. It's unclear if pinned allows you to reverse the grapple or not, since that's normally part of the same check to break it. I might lean towards no, because it isn't listed in the specific actions pinned says you can take.


I'm not making any argument at the present time about initiating a grapple.

I want to focus on breaking out of a pin.

Lets see if we can agree on principles:

You are not armed. You do not threaten.
You cannot attack someone (else) in the grapplers square: you do not threaten.

You break out of the pin without using a weapon, the only maneuver you can make: You do not threaten the grappler.

Scarab Sages

Perfect Tommy wrote:

I'm not making any argument at the present time about initiating a grapple.

I want to focus on breaking out of a pin.

Lets see if we can agree on principles:

You are not armed. You do not threaten.
You cannot attack someone (else) in the grapplers square: you do not threaten.

You break out of the pin without using a weapon, the only maneuver you can make: You do not threaten the grappler.

I can agree with all of that. The problem is that you don't need to threaten to benefit from a flank.

An unarmed character that does not have Improved Unarmed Strike does not threaten any squares. If they try to hit someone with an unarmed attack, they can still receive a flanking bonus, because they are making a melee attack against a target that is flanked by someone who is threatening. If that ally makes an attack, that ally does not receive a flanking bonus, because the unarmed character does not threaten.

Does that make sense? Per the rule on flanking, threatening only matters for the character providing the flank, not the character attacking.

So a pinned character does not threaten and cannot provide a flank bonus for another character. If an enemy has my ally pinned, and I'm opposite that ally in a flanking position, I do not receive a flanking bonus to attack the enemy.

My ally might receive a flanking bonus when they try to break free, if the grapple check to break free is considered an attack.

If my ally is grappled, instead of pinned, but also unarmed, it's the same situation. I cannot get a flanking bonus. When they go to break free, though, they can clearly try to reverse the grapple, which is part of the same check to break free. That's more clearly an attack, because at the end of it, they will have the enemy grappled. It otherwise does not change the roll. If they beat the enemy's CMD, they have the option of ending the grapple (breaking free) or taking control of the grapple (reversing it).

Where I'm not sure with pinned, is that pinned says you can break free, but it doesn't include the language about taking control of the grapple that grappled does. At that point, though, we're talking about a +2 bonus that's only for the creature trying to break free, and I would probably take mercy on the player and let them get the bonus. It's still not going to allow them to provide a flank to anyone else while they are pinned.


Ferious Thune wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:

I'm not making any argument at the present time about initiating a grapple.

I want to focus on breaking out of a pin.

Lets see if we can agree on principles:

You are not armed. You do not threaten.
You cannot attack someone (else) in the grapplers square: you do not threaten.

You break out of the pin without using a weapon, the only maneuver you can make: You do not threaten the grappler.

I can agree with all of that. The problem is that you don't need to threaten to benefit from a flank.

I haven't been arguing a flanking question, till now.

Quote:

An unarmed character that does not have Improved Unarmed Strike does not threaten any squares. If they try to hit someone with an unarmed attack, they can still receive a flanking bonus, because they are making a melee attack against a target that is flanked by someone who is threatening. If that ally makes an attack, that ally does not receive a flanking bonus, because the unarmed character does not threaten.

I agree with all that.

My only point regarding flanking only concerned a character that was pinned, with the grappler 15 ft away. The pinned character does not provide a flanking bonus.

Quote:

Does that make sense? Per the rule on flanking, threatening only matters for the character providing the flank, not the character attacking.

So a pinned character does not threaten and cannot provide a flank bonus for another character. If an enemy has my ally pinned, and I'm opposite that ally in a flanking position, I do not receive a flanking bonus to attack the enemy.

Agree.

Quote:

My ally might receive a flanking bonus when they try to break free, if the grapple check to break free is considered an attack.

If my ally is grappled, instead of pinned, but also unarmed, it's the same situation. I cannot get a flanking bonus. When they go to break free, though, they can clearly try to reverse the grapple, which is part of the same check to break free. That's more clearly an attack, because at the end of it, they will have the enemy grappled. It otherwise does not change the roll. If they beat the enemy's CMD, they have the option of ending the grapple (breaking free) or taking control of the grapple (reversing it).

I am not really taking (much) of a position on this. I generally agree But there are several things that are unclear.

The ruling: http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lcom?Combat-Maneuvers-and-Weapon-Speci al-Features
And the ruling on AoMF

Makes is unclear exactly when/why what bonuses apply.

Here's a general section on combat maneuvers:

Quote:

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.

The problem is different mechanisms are shoe horned into one rule.

If you make a sunder attempt - is there any question you are making an attack roll? The wording makes sense.

However the two previous mentioned quotes (aomf and weapon special features) which more or less ruled that weapon enchantments don't add to grapple leaves a conundrum.

*Why* don't they add? Especially when they explicity said you are making a combat maneuver and kind of implicity denying it was an attack; or at the very least that the AoMF bonus (and by previous ruling any other weapon enchantments) applied.

Especially when it seems like weapons like Mancatcher should apply.

Throwin in the verbiage that the DC is the combat maneuver defense. Ths makes this seem like a skill check.

Thrown in other edge cases: A huge stone giant goes to grapple fred the crippled first level halfling commoner.

The Stone giant is +18 CMB. The halfing commoner is -1 CMD.
The Sone Giant hits and grapples. The halfling attempts to get out - and rolls a nat20. But...nat 20 does nothing when attempting to escape a grapple.

Anyway. tldr: Yes, I still think generally speaking that initiating a grapple is an attack. Yes, I think breaking a grapple is an attack (just not one that qualifies for threatening);

If the attacker is 15' away, and you don't have reach to attack the grappler I think you can break the grapple, but I don't think you can inflict the grappled condition.

I am willing to say that breaking the grapple is an attack against the grappler; It is probably a melee attack.


Oh, and I want to clarify that I mispoke a few posts back when I said

"And I would go still further. Breaking the grapple is not done with a weapon - so you don't threaten the grappler."

I was talking about breaking a pin, not a grapple.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Perfect Tommy wrote:
If you look at the grappling charts,

The charts are not official. The charts are 3rd party content. I don't accept the charts as evidence of rules.

Perfect Tommy wrote:
For the sake of argument we can say it is as you propose - that the Grappler pins and moves away.

That is not what I am proposing. That is what you are proposing. You are putting word into my mouth a lot. Stop it.

Perfect Tommy wrote:
You are proposing that your attempt to escape a grapple is a "melee attack"

If you are making a Combat Maneuver Check to escape the Grapple, yes. Combat Maneuvers executed during Melee are Melee Attacks. It's an Attack; it's part of a Melee; it's a Melee Attack.

Perfect Tommy wrote:
When you do not have a weapon.

Sure, the rules don't say

the rules never wrote:
You threaten all squares into which you can make an armed melee attack

And you haven't demonstrated that they do.

Perfect Tommy wrote:
It wouldn't matter if your opponent were 100 squares away - you are somehow equating your ability to escape a grapple with a melee attack.

When you make a Combat Maneuver Check to escape the Grapple, yes. The rules say that Making a Combat Maneuver is an Attack. It is listed as a Special Attack in the Combat Section. Special doesn't mean not. When you make a Combat Maneuver Check, you make an Attack Roll. If you make a Combat Maneuver with a Weapon, you get the Weapon's Combat Maneuver Bonus, and you the bonus from Weapon Focus. You can take Weapon Focus Grapple. There is abundant evidence that you are making an Attack when you make a Combat Maneuver. And I do think that attacks that happen as part of Melee are Melee Attacks.

The element of Reach does not make make an Attack not a Melee Attack. Reach Weapons are Melee Weapons. There are lots of creatures that attack with Reach all the time. Of course, you are talking now about a creature with a 100' Reach, right? If we are talking about a creature Grappling as a Ranged Attack Grappling and Pinning from 100' away, then no, you don't Threaten. Interestingly enough, you are also talking about a creature with 100' Movement, too, aren't you? Are you saying that if you Grapple someone and then Move beyond your own Reach, you are still in control of the Grapple? The rules don't technically say that you have to stay within your Reach of your opponent to be in control of your Grapple on him just like they don't say you can't Move away from Adjacent to your opponent after making a successful Grapple Check. This makes me further believe that it at least should be illegal to move away from your opponent after Grappling him.

Perfect Tommy wrote:
a hundred squares away and NOWHERE/NO ONE else - you are somehow saying you threaten and should qualify as flanking?... Furthermore, you are hand waiving away the requirement that you must be able to make an attack into a *square*.

I'm saying none of that. Stop strawmanning me. I have already said that if you were allowed to move away from your opponent after Grappling with him and if you have superior Reach to your opponent,then I agree you could use your superior Reach to avoid being Threatened by your opponent.

I also say that this is reason that you should not be allowed to move away from an opponent you are Grappling. The rules say you can attack the person who is Pinning you, and the rules say that you Threaten any square that you can attack into. There should not be a situation where you can Attack into a Square that you don't Threaten, but we are proposing one!

Perfect Tommy wrote:
You are trying to make the false equivalence that attacking a person is the same as attack a square.

I am not. Stop strawmanning me. Clearly, "attacking into a square" is not the same thing as "attack a square." "Attacking a square" refers to things like throwing a flask of Alchemist fire to inflict Splash Damage on everything in the square, like what you would do if you were fighting a Swarm. You Threaten to attack any creature in a Square if you can Attack into the square, as in Threatening a Square.

Edit: I fixed a misattributed quote.


Ferious Thune wrote:
Scott - Tommy quoted it in his last message, and I quoted it a couple of times up thread. The Threaened Squares section contains the sentence, “If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.” If you are unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares.

I realized after the fact of posting my demand for a citation that this is what you were probably referring to.

Combat wrote:
If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares

And when you are Pinned, you pretty much can't take any action except attempt to escape from your Pin, and that precludes using almost any weapon you'd have, and that means you don't Threaten even your Grappler.

This is not evidence that you can only Threaten Squares you can make an Armed Melee Attack into, but it is a good point, even a telling point. You usually do not Threaten your Grappler when you are being Pinned because you usually are unarmed when you are Pinned because very few weapon attacks would qualify as an attempt to escape a Grapple, and when you are Unarmed, you usually don't Threaten any Squares.

So,

What if you have Improved Unarmed Strike?

Improved Unarmed Strike wrote:
You are considered to be armed even when unarmed

This wasn't on my radar since almost all of my martial characters do have Improved Unarmed Strike and many of other people's characters I've been thinking of lately are designed for Grappling in the first place.

When you have Improved Unarmed Strike, you are always considered Armed, so you do Threaten all squares within Reach even when you are Unarmed.

The rules still do say

Core Rulebook, Combat wrote:
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack,

A Combat Maneuver is Still an Attack you can make against your Grappler even while Pinned, and unless you are using Perfect Tommy's superior reach trick, you can attack into your Grappler's square by making your Combat Maneuver because you are making that attack against your Grappler. And since we are talking about an attack that is part of the melee, we are talking about a Melee Attack. And that means you would be Threatening your Grappler's Square. Unless of course, we can demonstrate that a Melee Attack is something other an Attack that is made as part of a Melee.

Scarab Sages

Improved Unarmed Strike in a pin is a grey area. If you can’t make an unarmed strike, then you probably shouldn’t be able to count as being armed because of your unarmed strike. Similarly, if you’re holding a dagger, you are armed. But if you can’t attack with that dagger, you are effectively unarmed. I’m not sure that the rules will ever be clear enough to spell all of that out, but that’s what I would go with at a table. Basically, being able to make a grapple check doesn’t satisfy the requirement for threatening when you aren’t pinned, so it doesn’t satisfy the requirement when you are pinned. If you remove the possibility of making an armed attack, you are unarmed, even if you have Improved Unarmed Strike. That last part goes a little bit farther than the rules explicitly state, but it still tracks with the rules.


Base RAW, if you have a way to threaten squares, you still threaten while grappled or pinned (nothing removes your ability to threaten squares). However you are denied your ability to make attacks of opportunity.

However it would be a reasonable house rule for a GM to say no, but in the end that still wouldn't be an official rule.

The only way that might prove that you don't threaten when grappled or pinned in RAW, is if there is an ability which grants you the ability to threaten squares which you could normally attack while grappled or pinned. Retaining the ability to make attacks of opportunity != threaten.

Scarab Sages

Pinned arguably (likely, I think) removes your ability to attack in any way other than trying to break the grapple. That would remove your ability to threaten at least for creatures other than the one grappling you. When you are grappled, you can still attack targets other than the creature grappling you, so you still threaten.

You are correct that AoOs don’t have anything to do with it.


Scott,

I get that you don't like the AoMF ruling.
I get that you disagreed that being moved in a grapple doesn't provoke.
Thread here: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tr8g?Grapple-Move-and-Attack-of-Opportunity
I get that you would prefer to change the rules to correspond to how you think they should work:

Quote:


I also say that this is reason that you should not be allowed to move away from an opponent you are Grappling. The rules say you can attack the person who is Pinning you, and the rules say that you Threaten any square that you can attack into. There should not be a situation where you can Attack into a Square that you don't Threaten, but we are proposing one!

But one does wonder in your world, how does a wyvern grab a small character on a fly by - and fly away. As has happened in PFS mods?

In other words, Scott, I persist in attempting to conform your views to pathfinder rules.

I brought up a perfectly legal situation. A monster grapples you and moves away outside your reach.

Given the very clear wording from Paizo that you can't attack a bodypart, I've asked you three times now:

You claim that your ability to break the grapple allows you threaten the grappler. My question to you is- how is that possible when the grappler
is outside the reach of any weapon you have?

So far your answer is to sputter a lot and pound the table and say - that shouldn't be allowed. We all know the reason you won't concede the point.

Because the only logical conclusion is that no, by itself, the ability to escape the grapple does not, in itself, threaten the grappler.


Ferious Thune wrote:

Pinned arguably (likely, I think) removes your ability to attack in any way other than trying to break the grapple. That would remove your ability to threaten at least for creatures other than the one grappling you. When you are grappled, you can still attack targets other than the creature grappling you, so you still threaten.

You are correct that AoOs don’t have anything to do with it.

Ability to attack != threaten

As shown by ranged characters without snapshot, unarmed characters etc.

Being pinned has nothing that removes their ability to threaten, now from my own GM standpoint, no they don't threaten, but that's a table to table basis.
Another note is that technically unconsciousness, stunned, etc don't remove the ability to threaten squares as well, only ranged and unarmed does (which is stupid).

Being a reasonable person though, I would argue that characters who are grappled, but not prone do threaten as they are able to make attacks. While being pinned, unconscious, stunned, etc should remove the ability to threaten squares.

Scarab Sages

Threatened Squares wrote:

Threatened Squares

You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.

If you cannot make a melee attack, you don’t threaten any squares. Conditions that remove the ability to attack don’t need to state that they remove the ability to threaten. Being able to make a melee attack is part of the requirement to threaten. It’s the first sentence. You can’t attack when you’re unconscious, stunned, etc., so you don’t threaten. It’s possible to be able to make a melee attack and still not threaten, but it’s not possible to threaten without being able to make a melee attack.

A grappled creature can still attack, so if they are armed (wielding a one-handed or light weapon, have a natural attack, or Improved Unarmed Strike), then they threaten. If they have a two-handed weapon, they don’t threaten, because they can’t attack with a two-handed weapon in a grapple. If they are unarmed, they don’t threaten (meaning they also don’t have Improved Unarmed Strike).


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Improved Unarmed Strike wrote:
You are considered to be armed even when unarmed

This wasn't on my radar since almost all of my martial characters do have Improved Unarmed Strike and many of other people's characters I've been thinking of lately are designed for Grappling in the first place.

When you have Improved Unarmed Strike, you are always considered Armed, so you do Threaten all squares within Reach even when you are Unarmed.

The rules still do say....

The whole "armed"/"unarmed" quandary is something they missed an opportunity to heave over the side when they took over from 3rd edition. In a more perfect game, you'd always be "armed" with something, even if you were the Black Knight hopping around on one leg, and all that would matter is whether your were proficient at it, or sucked at -4 and ate AoOs.


willuwontu wrote:

Being pinned has nothing that removes their ability to threaten, now from my own GM standpoint, no they don't threaten, but that's a table to table basis. Another note is that technically unconsciousness, stunned, etc don't remove the ability to threaten squares as well, only ranged and unarmed does (which is stupid).

Being a reasonable person though, I would argue that characters who are grappled, but not prone do threaten as they are able to make attacks. While being pinned, unconscious, stunned, etc should remove the ability to threaten squares.

A stunned person specifically cannot take actions. An unconscious person cannot take actions by definition. A pinned person can still take actions (albeit a reduced set), and thus they remain a threat.

- - -

A scene out of every old movie involving a hero with a dog:

<BBEG has hero pinned>
<Hero whistles as a free action while delaying>
<Lassie darts in and bite/grapples BBEG with a +4 Pack Flanking bonus>
<Hero succeeds countergrapple with his own +4 Pack Flanking bonus>
<Hero beats the tar out of BBEG>

"Good boy!"
"Arf!"


No actually nothing in the rules say they must continue to pay attention to them. Because they aren't a threat.

You can spell cast next to them with impunity. AoO? Nope.
Spell cast. AoO Nope.

And since the hero doesn't threaten the BBEG - Lassie doesn't get a pack flanking bonus and is instead made into dog food.


Perfect Tommy wrote:
No actually nothing in the rules say they must continue to pay attention to them. Because they aren't a threat.

The condition of being pinned specifically states that you are capable of maneuvers. Maneuvers are a type of melee attack. If you can make a melee attack, you threaten.

An unarmed person cannot threaten with a weapon (because, by definition, they do not have one). But maneuvers do not require weapons.


But threaten says you must be able to make an armed attack into a square.

Breaking a pin is not an armed attack, let alone an armed attack into a square.

An no, pinned doesn't actually say you can take maneuvers. Can you do a trip check? No. Can you do a disarm? No.

What it says is:

"A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check."

The grappler applies a pinned condition on you, by executing first a grapple, and then a grapple to pin.

This condition allows you to break free by a combat maneuver check. But executing the check - which is making a CMB vs your captor's pin is a special check to get out - not at all equivalent to being able to make a combat maneuver.

Your two ways to get out are an Escape Artist Check, and rolling your CMB vs your Grapplers bonus.

How is that different...

Can you grapple your grappler? No.
Can you grapple someone else? No.
Can you move your grapppler? No.
Can you reposition your grappler.. No.


Tommy,

What point are you trying to make? I am not seeing anything here except personal attacks. My person is not being offered as evidence. Attacking my person does not diminish my arguments.

What point are you trying to make with wyverns? Do wyverns Pin people and are immune to Flanking while trying to Pin people? What is your point?

What point are you trying to make with the Amulet of Mighty Fists? The Amulet of Mighty Fists does not modify regular Grapple Checks, and it is regular Grapple checks that we are talking about. What does the Amulet of Mighty Fists have to do with whether you are being Pinned? What is your point?

I don't see how any of this has anything to whether Threaten opponents who Pin you.

What point are you trying to make with Reach? I've already addressed what you have to say with Reach. You aren't addressing anything that I've said about this, even where I am conceding to what you've said. You are advancing no argument! All you are doing is making further personal attacks.

I see no merit in anything you have to say here. Stop verbally abusing me, please!


Perfect Tommy wrote:
But threaten says you must be able to make an armed attack into a square.
PRD Combat section wrote:
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.

There is no requirement that your melee attack be an "armed" one.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Tommy,

What point are you trying to make? I am not seeing anything here except personal attacks. My person is not being offered as evidence. Attacking my person does not diminish my arguments.

What point are you trying to make with wyverns? Do wyverns Pin people and are immune to Flanking while trying to Pin people? What is your point?

What point are you trying to make with the Amulet of Mighty Fists? The Amulet of Mighty Fists does not modify regular Grapple Checks, and it is regular Grapple checks that we are talking about. What does the Amulet of Mighty Fists have to do with whether you are being Pinned? What is your point?

I don't see how any of this has anything to whether Threaten opponents who Pin you.

What point are you trying to make with Reach? I've already addressed what you have to say with Reach. You aren't addressing anything that I've said about this, even where I am conceding to what you've said. You are advancing no argument! All you are doing is making further personal attacks.

I see no merit in anything you have to say here. Stop verbally abusing me, please!

And I see no merit in anything youre saying here. Please stop the victimhood.

You suggested that the rules should be changed so that grapplers cannot grapple you and move.

I said really? Then how would you handle situations like wyverns flying by, grappling you and flying off. A situation which has happened multiple times in pathfinder societies.

Rules are supposed to give us guidelines to handle situations.
Your suggested rules completely remove the ability to handle common situations.

Secondly. I have four times now asked you how do you threaten when your grappler is outside your reach.

You have never answered. Its bad form to ignore the question, and bad form to fail to acknowledge defects to your argument.

So - I'll answer some of your questions when you (perhaps) when you address this one = ).


[quoe]If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.


Ferious Thune wrote:
Threatened Squares wrote:

Threatened Squares

You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.
If you cannot make a melee attack, you don’t threaten any squares. Conditions that remove the ability to attack don’t need to state that they remove the ability to threaten. Being able to make a melee attack is part of the requirement to threaten. It’s the first sentence. You can’t attack when you’re unconscious, stunned, etc., so you don’t threaten.

I agree with you so far.

Ferious Thune wrote:
It’s possible to be able to make a melee attack and still not threaten, but it’s not possible to threaten without being able to make a melee attack.

I have a problem with this. This contradicts the rules you quoted and bolded.

Threatened Squares wrote:
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack

Per RAW, if you can Attack, you Threaten.

Ferious Thune wrote:
A grappled creature can still attack, so if they are armed (wielding a one-handed or light weapon, have a natural attack, or Improved Unarmed Strike), then they threaten.

Yup.

Ferious Thune wrote:
If they have a two-handed weapon, they don’t threaten, because they can’t attack with a two-handed weapon in a grapple.

If all they have is a 2 handed weapon, I guess. Having a 2 handed weapon does not disqualify you from making attacks while Grappled. If you have a Greatsword and Armor Spikes, and you are Grappled, you can still attack with your Armor Spikes. If you have a Lucerne Hammer and Improved Unarmed Strike, you can still make Unarmed Strikes. But this is probably a minor point.

Ferious Thune wrote:
If they are unarmed, they don’t threaten (meaning they also don’t have Improved Unarmed Strike).

Well, that isn't completely, 100% true.

Ferious Thune wrote:
If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares

But we have established that even if you are unarmed and don't have Improved Unarmed Strike, then you still can make Grapple Checks to Free yourself. Grapple Checks are Attacks; attacks made as part of melee are melee attacks, and therefore the Pinned, Unarmed creature without IUS does threaten his Grappler!


Quote:
"If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity."


Quote:
But we have established that even if you are unarmed and don't have Improved Unarmed Strike, then you still can make Grapple Checks to Free yourself. Grapple Checks are Attacks; attacks made as part of melee are melee attacks, and therefore the Pinned, Unarmed creature without IUS does threaten his Grappler!

No "we" have not established that grapple checks threaten your grappler.

You keep asserting it. Just as specious and fallacious as when first proposed.

A. Hole 1.

Not all attacks threaten. If you make an unarmed attack (absent UAS) you attack but you do not threaten. Therefore merely being able to escape a pin is insufficient to say you threaten.

Why does an unarmed strike NOT threaten?

Because apparently the risk of taking subdual damage is not sufficient to allow you to "threaten" someone in a square.

You are proposing that attempting to escape a pin - an actual which inflicts NO damage, not even subdual; inflicts no condition, somehow is more threatening than unarmed strikes.

Sorry - it doesn't even pass the sniff test.

B. Hole 2.

Your grappler is 15 feet away, outside your reach. By rules you cannot attack body parts. You have no weapon (or anything) to reach your grappler. How exactly do you threaten?

C. Hole 3.
We haven't established that you can make Grapple attacks. What is established that the pinned condition allows you to make a Grapple Maneuver check to escape. Making a check is not the same as making a grapple attack.

It also says you can take a Escape check. Is this an attack now too?

D. Hole 4.
The pin condition says nothing about being able to take control of the grapple. There is nothing therefore remotely "threatening" about escaping a pin.

E. Hole 5
The game mechanic threaten does not apply to people. You do not threaten people.
You threaten squares within your reach into which you can make a melee attack.

The whole line of logic that because you can attempt to escape a grapple means that you can thereby transitively threten a square is specious.

There is ONE rule and one rule only under which it is established that you can make an attack into a square.


Perfect Tommy wrote:
Quote:
"If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity."

I.e., ...with a weapon. (That's the "general" rule.)

Nobody is talking about weapon attacks (i.e., for damage) in the current context. We're talking about maneuvers. (That's the "specific", which overrides general.)

Most rules in Pathfinder have a degree of squishiness about them, and are laden with qualifiers (such as the word I've bolded) to clue you in that there will be exceptions.


Slim Jim wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:
Quote:
"If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity."

...with a weapon. (That's the "general".)

Nobody is talking about weapon attacks in the current context. We're talking about maneuvers. (That's the "specific", which overrides general.)

Sure. Please provide a specific rules quote that overwrites the RAW that govern when you threaten.

You can't because with a hundred+posts todate someone would have posted one if it existed.


If there weren't exceptions, then why is the word "normally" in there?

-- It's presence implies exceptions.


Sure. And I can think of hundreds of them

But none of those exceptions apply to escaping a pin. The game is based on feats and classes breaking the rules. Its an exception based game.

However, in order for the RAW to be disregarded, you have to have a rules based exception that allows it.

You don't. If you had it, we could discuss and debate it. Without it RAW stand.

You don't get to try to create your own definitions of 'normally.'


If you're attempting to argue that one is incapable of threatening with a maneuver while "unarmed", there are already any number of existing threads on that subject dating back to 2010. Do we really need this one to get hijacked into becoming a clone of those many others?


Then you should have no problem finding a quote that overturns RAW on when you threaten.

Especially when pinned. I look forward to the fruits of your labor. Not that this is my position mind you.

I explained 6 holes in yours and scotts argument above; to which I'd love to see a cogent response.


PRD wrote:
Melee Attack: While a melee attack isn’t an action type itself, many options and other rules affect melee attacks. Some combat options (such as the disarm and sunder combat maneuvers) can be used anytime you make a melee attack, including attacks of opportunity.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:

If there weren't exceptions, then why is the word "normally" in there?

-- It's presence implies exceptions.

The exception is having the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.

If it were true that you threaten with a maneuver, then there’d be no reason to be so specific in the section on threatened squares. Everyone can perform a maneuver, so everyone would normally threaten when unarmed. The exception would be not threatening.

When something says this is how it works normally, then something else needs to specifically say it is an exception. Improved Unarmed Strike does that. Grapple, trip, sunder, etc. do not. Improved Grapple, Trip, Sunder, etc. don’t ether. So they are not exceptions.


Perfect Tommy wrote:

Secondly. I have four times now asked you how do you threaten when your grappler is outside your reach.

You have never answered. Its bad form to ignore the question, and bad form to fail to acknowledge defects to your argument.

Your statement is astonishing in how completely and obviously false it is. I have absolutely not ignoring your question. I have given thorough treatment of your scenario in a few posts. Actually, I've even given some ground to you in addressing your arguments. But rather than do anything with the points you made, you have chosen to just deliver more personal remarks. Even where we agree, even I've asked you to please stop.

I wrote:
I have already said that if you were allowed to move away from your opponent after Grappling with him and if you have superior Reach to your opponent,then I agree you could use your superior Reach to avoid being Threatened by your opponent.
I wrote:
unless you are using Perfect Tommy's superior reach trick, you can attack into your Grappler's square by making your Combat Maneuver because you are making that attack against your Grappler.
I wrote:
The element of Reach does not make make an Attack not a Melee Attack. Reach Weapons are Melee Weapons.
I wrote:

So, the situation you are talking about is a creature with greater Reach than his opponent Initiating a Grapple, Moving away while still controlling the Grapple because you say after moving your opponent adjacent to you upon Initiating the Grapple, you are then free to Move off so long as you are within your Reach. Then on your next Round, you Maintain the Grapple again, again moving the creature adjacent to you, this time Pinning your opponent, and again moving 15' away from your opponent, still controlling the Grapple.

I'm dubious of your getting away with doing this at a PFS table, although technically, I'm not sure this is illegal.

But again, if this is legal to do, then what you are describing is a creature using superior Reach to avoid being Threatened by an opponent, even while Grappling and Pinning him.

That doesn't mean that a Combat Maneuver is not an attack that happens in melee and therefore a melee attack....
Actually, my logic + your example, if your example is legal, would have me Attacking a creature I don't Threaten. If the situation you're proposing is even allowed, then the rules clearly say I can make a Grapple Check against my Grappler while Pinned. The rules clearly say that a Grapple is an Attack. The rules clearly say you can't Threaten a Square you can't Reach, while at the same time they say you Threaten any Square you can make a Melee Attack into.

So, you've brought us to a paradox. I think we need an official ruling. Either

A) A Combat Maneuver is not a melee attack even though it is an attack that is done in melee, that a Melee Attack is only an attack made with some sort of weapon to inflict points of Damage, or

B) Regardless of your Reach, you have to be adjacent to your opponent your are Grappling with.

All this is addressing your Reach argument in this very thread for you to read. The fact that you are insisting that I haven't means that it is you who have been ignoring my arguments.

you wrote:
Its bad form to ignore the question, and bad form to fail to acknowledge defects to your argument.

Try showing some good form yourself.


Perfect Tommy wrote:
Then how would you handle situations like wyverns flying by, grappling you and flying off.

I don't recall your actually bringing to this thread any evidence that wyverns can do what you say. And if they can, how do the special abilities of wyverns speak to the general rules regarding Grappling, Pinning, and Threatening.

Perhaps if you could expand on this?


Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I appreciate you listing your responses. But the question I asked, restated here: doesn't the fact that you cannot, in fact always "attack" your grappler - but you CAN always attempt to escape the pin mean, in fact that grapple escape <> melee attack.

And since your entire argument rests on grapple escape = melee attack isn't that a rather serious blow to your argument?

Of the top of my head, I can think of no other actions you can take that whose nature is changed based on an enemy condition.

In other words I can choose to attack with a dagger as a melee action. Or I can choose to throw the dagger and make a ranged melee attack.

But no action (melee attack for example) changes definition. Ie its a melee attack if you use it at 5ft, but its not a melee attack if the target is at 10 feet. The actions you take may change - but the definition of the action does not.

Anyway, in fact, I have made five or six similar questions, listed above. I would appreciate if you could enumerate responses along the lines of

1. This is wrong because.
2. You're right. I've reconsidered because.

Etc.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:
Then how would you handle situations like wyverns flying by, grappling you and flying off.

I don't recall your actually bringing to this thread any evidence that wyverns can do what you say. And if they can, how do the special abilities of wyverns speak to the general rules regarding Grappling, Pinning, and Threatening.

Perhaps if you could expand on this?

I have previously. I'll repeat it.

You suggested that people doing a grapple should not be able to move after the grapple.

My reply was that we have rules to enable use to simulate encounters. One of the classic ones is a monster swooping in, grabbing a character and flying off.

Your proposed rule would remove any ability to simulate those kinds of scenarios. It is therefore a bad idea.

Additionally, you expressed dubiousness that the maneuver was PFS legal.
Making a grapple is a std action which leaves you able to take a move action.

What then is the reason for your dubiousity. Specifically because there are rules for moving a creature with you?

Additionally, I said there was a PFS scenario where a wyvern made a grab on a flyby. Wyverns have grab and flyby, so I'm not sure why you question the veracity. But either way, you questioning my veracity on it doesn't rise to the level where I feel compelled to search for & spoil the mod and encounter.


Perfect Tommy wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:
Then how would you handle situations like wyverns flying by, grappling you and flying off.

I don't recall your actually bringing to this thread any evidence that wyverns can do what you say. And if they can, how do the special abilities of wyverns speak to the general rules regarding Grappling, Pinning, and Threatening.

Perhaps if you could expand on this?

What then is the reason for your dubiousity? Specifically because there are rules for moving a creature with you?

Additionally, I said there was a PFS scenario where a wyvern made a grab on a flyby. Wyverns have grab and flyby, so I'm not sure why you question the veracity. But either way, you questioning my veracity on it doesn't rise to the level where I feel compelled to search for & spoil the mod and encounter.

So what I am asking for is a quote from the descriptions of Wyverns in the rules that shows that Wyverns can do what you describe.

I don't want to diminish or dismiss your experience in PFS, but it is possible that your GM was going beyond the Rules when he was playing that Wyvern, or it may be that that Wyvern had special abilities that no other Wyvern has due to something special about that scenario in that adventure. In any event, I want to see the official rules source quoted here so it can be examined. Furthermore, I need to see the ability spelled out so I can see how your evidence of the Wyvern makes your point about Pinning vs. Threatening: the logical bridge between your argument and your thesis.

Scarab Sages

On that one, it’s not a question of whether the grappler can move after a grapple. They clearly can if they have a move action left (or are performing a flyby Attack with grab). They would have to release the grapple to do so, though. The issue is that, ordinarily, in order to move the creature you are grappling, you must maintain the grapple and select the Move option. You can’t do that on the initial grapple check. There are then specific rules for how you move the creature. You have to move at half speed, for one. And if the creature ends up in a dangerous space, they get a free roll to break the grapple. In the air when they aren’t already flying would probably be considered a dangerous space.

Now, I don’t know the PFS scenario in question. It’s possible the wyvern in question has something that allows them to do what you’re describing. It would need to be more than the grab ability and Fly By Attack. It’s also possible the scenario writer wrote the tactics not understanding how moving a creature in a grapple works. It happens. PFS scenarios aren’t always the best place to look for how a rule works, because sometimes incorrect things slip through. It’s also possible your GM didn’t understand the rules, if this is based off game play experience and not the written tactics.

At any rate, a creature cannot normally make a standard action grapple (or standard action attack with grab) and then take a move action to move with the creature they are grappling. They need to wait until they are able to maintain the grapple, and then follow the rules defined under that section.

1 to 50 of 132 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can a pinned creature attack its grappler? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.