Please Tell Me You Can't Ranged Grapple


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
No you can't ranged grapple. That is the reason the fighter needs a special ability to be able to do so with a bow.
Once you have loosed the arrow, you have no particular means of drawing your opponent to you, even technically did grapple them with HS. And the Grappling rules make no provision for reeling in an opponent on a line once you've pinned them at bowshot ranges.

What if the person is already beside you?

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SanKeshun wrote:
needing a weapon with the right properties as well, unarmed strike has no weapon properties besides nonlethal, and yet it can perform every combat maneuver. By default, you perform all combat maneuvers without a weapon. You need the special property only if you're trying to use a weapon, which is the more specific rule.

I'm responding to this because no one has yet. This is not true. You can only make a trip, disarm, or sunder with an unarmed strike, just like any other weapon. If you make any other manuever check, any modifiers to your unarmed strike will not apply. Weapon focus, enhancement bonus, and the like do not apply. If you make a bull rush, dirty trick, reposition, or grapple you are using your body, but you are not making an unarmed strike.


Well... that's just obnoxious. Grappling is a combat maneuver is a special attack is an attack is a standard action, but it has to specifically jump over attack in its rules? Sigh. Too much complexity for my liking.

Anyway, for anyone who has reason to consult this thread in the future (and I feel bad for you if you do): Conclusions!

  • Ranged grapples are not a thing (usually, see below).
  • Grappling follows the rules regarding standard actions for when it can be performed, subject to the restrictions of combat maneuvers.
  • All other rules for grappling are drawn from combat maneuvers (or the rules specifically on grappling).
  • Unlike other combat maneuvers, grappling cannot be performed as an attack action, even though it is one.
  • A grapple does not have to occur adjacent to a creature, if one or more of the following conditions are met: the grappler has reach, the grappler is using a suitable weapon with reach (such as Hamatula Strike with a longspear), a special ranged weapon is used (such as grappling arrows), a special ability is used (these were alluded to, but I don't have a specific example), or telekienesis or a similar spell is used. If something says it lets you perform a grapple at range, then it does.

@Paradozen, while I agree with all your points, I still maintain that the rules ought to be followed when they are given (potentially leading to dumb mishaps like my misinterpretation of the rules here). I guess I'm Lawful Stupid. Sue me (well, please don't, actually).

@Imbicatus, that seems wrong, instinctively, though I can see it in the rules, now that you point it out. Thanks for pulling it. Although... yeah, still bothers me, being able to make a type of attack without a weapon.

@Ridiculon, don't go find Twodee, it's particularly bizarre and not terribly relevant. Inform 7 is fun though as the programming language that is currently closest to natural language. Used for building interactive fiction. Check it out if you're interested. Your rules project does sound interesting, though, especially with some of the problems inherent with a system like this (no universal parent, for example, and multiple inheritance). Not sure the forum is the best place for it, but feel free to shoot me a PM!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lorewalker wrote:
The Morphling wrote:
This thread reminds me of the fact that there are absolutely no penalties associated with the "dead" condition.

Ugh... every time I hear this it makes me facepalm.

1) For the dead, the soul is no longer attached to the body. This is part of the death condition.

2) Without a soul, a body is a piece of meat.

The undead abominations of the world rage at your casual dismissal of their existence!

;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The original Gnomes born of the First World are living and don't have souls.


wraithstrike wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
No you can't ranged grapple. That is the reason the fighter needs a special ability to be able to do so with a bow.
Once you have loosed the arrow, you have no particular means of drawing your opponent to you, even technically did grapple them with HS. And the Grappling rules make no provision for reeling in an opponent on a line once you've pinned them at bowshot ranges.
What if the person is already beside you?

Then I guess that would be a legit use of Hamatula strike. But if you are stabbing with the arrow in your hand, that's Improvised Weapon Penalties. If you are shooting your bow at an adjacent target, that's attacks of opportunity.

Edit: at time like that, it would be better just to pull your morning star off your belt, and use HS with that.


SanKeshun wrote:
Unlike other combat maneuvers, grappling cannot be performed as an attack action, even though it is one.

An argument can be made that when you grapple using a weapon (like with whip master) you add the relevant modifiers like weapon enhancement, weapon focus, weapon training and the like.


Nicos wrote:
SanKeshun wrote:
Unlike other combat maneuvers, grappling cannot be performed as an attack action, even though it is one.
An argument can be made that when you grapple using a weapon (like with whip master) you add the relevant modifiers like weapon enhancement, weapon focus, weapon training and the like.

This is why I referenced the combat maneuver rules - they address this. With a whip, you would add the relevant modifiers. With nothing, as Imbicatus pointed out, you do not add any modifiers (besides CMB).


SanKeshun wrote:
Well... that's just obnoxious. Grappling is a combat maneuver is a special attack is an attack is a standard action, but it has to specifically jump over attack in its rules? Sigh. Too much complexity for my liking.

Yeeeeah, the only piece of the attack rules that grapple ends up keeping is... rolling a d20. lol. other than that its different in every respect. I wish the forum formatting had a cross-through tag so i could show the rule inheritance better


Ridiculon wrote:
SanKeshun wrote:
Well... that's just obnoxious. Grappling is a combat maneuver is a special attack is an attack is a standard action, but it has to specifically jump over attack in its rules? Sigh. Too much complexity for my liking.
Yeeeeah, the only piece of the attack rules that grapple ends up keeping is... rolling a d20. lol. other than that its different in every respect. I wish the forum formatting had a cross-through tag so i could show the rule inheritance better

Do you mean this tag?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

NoYES! I thought i'd seen you use it before, I actually just spent a few minutes looking through your posts but i couldn't find it. Thank you very much. (I wish they would update the formatting FAQ to include all the tags)

Scarab Sages

SanKeshun wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
The Morphling wrote:
This thread reminds me of the fact that there are absolutely no penalties associated with the "dead" condition.

Ugh... every time I hear this it makes me facepalm.

1) For the dead, the soul is no longer attached to the body. This is part of the death condition.

2) Without a soul, a body is a piece of meat.

The undead abominations of the world rage at your casual dismissal of their existence!

;)

I chose to skip undead entirely because they would be a discussion on their own. You'll notice I also skipped outsiders which function slightly differently as well. Again, for brevity's sake.

Suffice it to say a body without a soul is inert unless some other force animates it.


SanKeshun wrote:
Nicos wrote:
SanKeshun wrote:
Unlike other combat maneuvers, grappling cannot be performed as an attack action, even though it is one.
An argument can be made that when you grapple using a weapon (like with whip master) you add the relevant modifiers like weapon enhancement, weapon focus, weapon training and the like.
This is why I referenced the combat maneuver rules - they address this. With a whip, you would add the relevant modifiers. With nothing, as Imbicatus pointed out, you do not add any modifiers (besides CMB).

When you make a combat maneuver with a weapon, you get to add the weapon's attack bonus. Grappling is not normally done with a weapon, but if it is, it is.

There was a special ruling that the Amulet of Mighty Fists does not enhance Grapple Checks. It enhances "unarmed attacks." A Grapple is an Attack. It is "unarmed," but by reason of special ruling, this Attack that is unarmed is not an "unarmed attack."

But that special ruling does not stop the enhancement bonus upon Natural Attacks with Grab enhancing the Grapple Check! Nor would it prevent Hamatula Strike, since in both cases, the weapon is clearly being used to Grapple.


Ridiculon wrote:
NoYES! I thought i'd seen you use it before, I actually just spent a few minutes looking through your posts but i couldn't find it. Thank you very much. (I wish they would update the formatting FAQ to include all the tags)

It's there. It's on the same line as the bold and italics tags.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
No you can't ranged grapple. That is the reason the fighter needs a special ability to be able to do so with a bow.
Once you have loosed the arrow, you have no particular means of drawing your opponent to you, even technically did grapple them with HS. And the Grappling rules make no provision for reeling in an opponent on a line once you've pinned them at bowshot ranges.
What if the person is already beside you?

Then I guess that would be a legit use of Hamatula strike. But if you are stabbing with the arrow in your hand, that's Improvised Weapon Penalties. If you are shooting your bow at an adjacent target, that's attacks of opportunity.

Edit: at time like that, it would be better just to pull your morning star off your belt, and use HS with that.

What do you think the PDT(rules team) will say about ranged attacks and grappling if they were to pop in here?


BWAHAHAHAAAAA!!! For a small fee, anyone can send me a carrier pigeon, sending spell, or the like, and I will grapple them to my location. Irregardless of distance!!!


wraithstrike wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
No you can't ranged grapple. That is the reason the fighter needs a special ability to be able to do so with a bow.
Once you have loosed the arrow, you have no particular means of drawing your opponent to you, even technically did grapple them with HS. And the Grappling rules make no provision for reeling in an opponent on a line once you've pinned them at bowshot ranges.
What if the person is already beside you?

Then I guess that would be a legit use of Hamatula strike. But if you are stabbing with the arrow in your hand, that's Improvised Weapon Penalties. If you are shooting your bow at an adjacent target, that's attacks of opportunity.

Edit: at time like that, it would be better just to pull your morning star off your belt, and use HS with that.

What do you think the PDT(rules team) will say about ranged attacks and grappling if they were to pop in here?

Before I begin, I want to analyze your question. I don't think you framed this question on purpose. But this is a framed question.

The question pre-assumes the PDT is going to respond at all. In general, I'd say that the PDT doesn't respond to anything unless they are unhappy about it. Any Official Rules Post on this matter already pre-supposes they are grumpy: they would re-word Hamatula Strike to say Piercing, Melee Weapons, not just Piercing Weapons.

But let's now pre-assume that the PDT is reading these posts avidly, and that "no response" is a response. Like in the Rush song, if the PDT chooses not to decide, they have made a choice. Having answered your literal question, I would like to explore the question I think you meant to ask: will the prospect of players using Hamatula Strike with a Bow inspire a crackdown?

If you use Hamatula Strike with your arrows, that would mean you might impose the Grappled condition on your target for 1 round, but with no way to maintain the Grapple, it couldn't last. While Grappled, your target would suffer a -4 Dex and unable to move without breaking the Grapple somehow, so making it easier to hit a 2nd time. You would have the option of Grappling your target again with a second shot.

Hamatula Strike wrote:
While the opponent is impaled, as an attack action you may make a grapple check on your turn at a -4 penalty to damage the opponent with your weapon, even if your weapon cannot normally be used in a grapple.

So this wouldn't give you stacking damage, but it would propose keep your opponent literally pinned (not Pinned!) down with subsequent shots, making it easier to continue hitting. And with those subsequent shots, it would allow you to target your opponents' CMD instead of AC, albeit at a -4.

This seems unexpected, but this seems like a legitimate use of the HS Feat, which lets you achieve special skewering effects with Piercing weapons that have grappling effects on your opponent. HS, per RAW, though, does have an embedded problem:

Hamatula Strike wrote:
success means the opponent is impaled on your weapon and you both gain the grappled condition.

Since one would not normally gain the Grappled Condition from a good shot with an arrow, one might say it implicitly states that if you have no physical contact with your opponent, you can't use the Feat at all. But, maybe it is legit to let the rules lie, if you shoot your opponent and successfully use HS, you and your opponent gain the Grappled Condition. Literally, it means you can't Move, and you take a -4 Dex. Conceptually, in this case it reflects having to stand perfectly still as you draw a bead on your opponent. Being the one on control of the Grapple, at the cost of losing that bead on your enemy, you can move around and use your Dex Mod to dodge arrows shot at you.

Meanwhile, there are already rules that describe weapons like Harpoons. Hamatula Strike with a Harpoon? Why not?

There is a grappling arrow, but that is meant for setting climbing ropes, not as some sort of bow-launched Harpoon. They would probably allow use of it as an Improvised Weapon.

Stabbing with an arrow in your hand to use Hamatula Strike seems perfectly legit using Improvised Weapon rules.

Shooting at an adjacent target to activate Hamatula Strike is technically legal, but the PDT probably never thought of that. That being said, seems legit and more like a tactic to use in adversity than as part of your character design: shooting at an opponent that can Reach you provokes an Attack of Opportunity. And if it's successful, you and your opponent are in a very normal Grapple now.

My instinct is that unless someone can find a way to break the game using Ranged Grappling, the PDT will make no official response, and I don't see a game-breaking feature here.

So, to answer your question in what I believe is the spirit it was asked.

wraithstrike wrote:
What do you think the PDT(rules team) will say about ranged attacks and grappling if they were to pop in here?

I believe that the PDT will not change the statement they have already made.


Wow, so many people in this thread doing the knee-jerk "It doesn't work because... because... we know it doesn't work! Reasons!"

Of course we know grappling, and similar maneuvers, are intended to be done at melee range. But the poster is completely correct in the rules failing to mention this, as far as I can tell.

Btw, this is not a case of someone trying to do something not described in the rules. The rules tell you how to perform combat maneuvers, and nothing limits them to melee only. You really have to infer this from knowledge of how these types of things work in real life... which is reasonable. However, it also isn't, technically, by-the-rules.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
No you can't ranged grapple. That is the reason the fighter needs a special ability to be able to do so with a bow.
Once you have loosed the arrow, you have no particular means of drawing your opponent to you, even technically did grapple them with HS. And the Grappling rules make no provision for reeling in an opponent on a line once you've pinned them at bowshot ranges.
What if the person is already beside you?

Then I guess that would be a legit use of Hamatula strike. But if you are stabbing with the arrow in your hand, that's Improvised Weapon Penalties. If you are shooting your bow at an adjacent target, that's attacks of opportunity.

Edit: at time like that, it would be better just to pull your morning star off your belt, and use HS with that.

What do you think the PDT(rules team) will say about ranged attacks and grappling if they were to pop in here?

Before I begin, I want to analyze your question. I don't think you framed this question on purpose. But this is a framed question.

The question pre-assumes the PDT is going to respond at all. In general, I'd say that the PDT doesn't respond to anything unless they are unhappy about it. Any Official Rules Post on this matter already pre-supposes they are grumpy: they would re-word Hamatula Strike to say Piercing, Melee Weapons, not just Piercing Weapons.

But let's now pre-assume that the PDT is reading these posts avidly, and that "no response" is a response. Like in the Rush song, if the PDT chooses not to decide, they have made a choice. Having answered your literal question, I would like to explore the question I think you meant to ask: will the prospect of players using Hamatula Strike with a Bow inspire a crackdown?

If you use Hamatula Strike with your arrows, that would mean you might impose the Grappled condition on your target for 1 round, but with no...

It was a hypothetical question.

I will rephrase for you.
If an FAQ were made what do you think they would say.
Feel free to get me the short answer.
If you answered the question in your previous post with regard as to what their answer might be I do apologize for overlooking it.

edit: I don't know what statement the PDT already made so I am asking will they say yes or no to ranged grappling, even if the character does not have a special weapon, special ability, or magic to help them do it.


Byakko wrote:

Wow, so many people in this thread doing the knee-jerk "It doesn't work because... because... we know it doesn't work! Reasons!"

Of course we know grappling, and similar maneuvers, are intended to be done at melee range. But the poster is completely correct in the rules failing to mention this, as far as I can tell.

Btw, this is not a case of someone trying to do something not described in the rules. The rules tell you how to perform combat maneuvers, and nothing limits them to melee only. You really have to infer this from knowledge of how these types of things work in real life... which is reasonable. However, it also isn't, technically, by-the-rules.

A lot of the rules are like that.

I will resort to my famous example of the dead condition not saying you can not take any actions.

The answer you get to this question from any one person will depend on whether that person goes by exactly what the book says or if they go by the most likely intent based on inference when discussing a rule. If two people in a discussion are coming from these two different base points they will likely never agree on how a rule works. Most saying that the ranged grapple are extrapolation based on how the game normally works. The book is not a technical manual, and it is expected that you do this to some extent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I can pretty much guarantee that any member of the PDT looking in on this thread has rolled their eyes, facepalmed, or sighed in frustration.

If you have any doubt about the intention of the grappling rules (and I really don't mean the exact letter of them, but the intent), get a post up that's suitable for FAQing.

The rules are not perfect, they're not written in legalese, they're written in pretty loose conversational language for the purpose of relaying information, not being parsed by a computer.

And then there's always the reasonableness test: if a non-gamer who was not trying to parse the rules as legal text were reading the grapple rules, would they believe that the rules say that it is possible to grapple at range?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

"In addition, whenever the hair strikes a foe, the witch can attempt to grapple that foe with her hair..."

"At 4th level and every four levels thereafter, a white-haired witch’s hair adds 5 feet to its reach, to a maximum of 30 feet at 20th level."


Telekinesis allows ranged grapple as well as some of the "hand" spells

Whips and specific feats

Creatures with tentacles and reach

Sounds like people who say you can't range grapple haven't played much?


Bwang wrote:

"In addition, whenever the hair strikes a foe, the witch can attempt to grapple that foe with her hair..."

"At 4th level and every four levels thereafter, a white-haired witch’s hair adds 5 feet to its reach, to a maximum of 30 feet at 20th level."

Thank you

Prehensile hair/WHW allows the same shenanigans


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pendagast wrote:

Telekinesis allows ranged grapple as well as some of the "hand" spells

Whips and specific feats

Creatures with tentacles and reach

Sounds like people who say you can't range grapple haven't played much?

No...

What we're saying is that you can't wrangle the rules so that a 1st level monk with nothing in his hands can grapple a target 130 feet away.


Pendagast wrote:

Telekinesis allows ranged grapple as well as some of the "hand" spells

Whips and specific feats

Creatures with tentacles and reach

Sounds like people who say you can't range grapple haven't played much?

Nobody is saying ranged grappling is impossible. We are saying that without some special exception you can't make a grapple without it being a melee attack. Also reach is not the same as ranged. A reach attack such as a tentacle or bite from a large creature is still a melee attack.

Don't be condescending and not know that reach(melee) and ranged are not the same thing.


Chemlak wrote:
Pendagast wrote:

Telekinesis allows ranged grapple as well as some of the "hand" spells

Whips and specific feats

Creatures with tentacles and reach

Sounds like people who say you can't range grapple haven't played much?

No...

What we're saying is that you can't wrangle the rules so that a 1st level monk with nothing in his hands can grapple a target 130 feet away.

Title says it all

Tell me you can't range grapple

Yes you can

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Chemlak wrote:
Pendagast wrote:

Telekinesis allows ranged grapple as well as some of the "hand" spells

Whips and specific feats

Creatures with tentacles and reach

Sounds like people who say you can't range grapple haven't played much?

No...

What we're saying is that you can't wrangle the rules so that a 1st level monk with nothing in his hands can grapple a target 130 feet away.

That i can understand. while it is possible to grapple something beyond the normal reach of your arm, You need some medium for the grapple to actually function(like a lasso, a spell that can grab or bind, a whip, or something to restrict the targets movement in some way, like a chained harpoon or rope). all of these things first require a successful ranged attack or usage to enable for the grapple attempt to be made. Plus some have a restriction on the range of the grapple(like the length of the rope). Plus some things probably won't be immediately impacted by the grapple. like a dragon.

As for the monk example, there is a way he could do a grapple of something 130ft away. Being fired 130f through the air at the target via catapult. again it requires the shot hitting first.


wraithstrike wrote:
Pendagast wrote:

Telekinesis allows ranged grapple as well as some of the "hand" spells

Whips and specific feats

Creatures with tentacles and reach

Sounds like people who say you can't range grapple haven't played much?

Nobody is saying ranged grappling is impossible. We are saying that without some special exception you can't do make a grapple without it being a melee attack. Also reach is not the same as ranged. A reach attack such as a tentacle or bite from a large creature is still a melee attack.

Don't be condescending and not know that reach(melee) and ranged are not the same thing.

Telekinesis is still ranged and you can still grapple with it

The OP suggested the only way to grapple should be adjacent foes
A whole bunch jumped in and agreed

A combat manuver by the way is not technically a melee attack, it's done in place of one
Unless it specifically says you can do it as part of a melee attack, like a wolf tripping with a bite


Grasping hand can do it at 230 feet or more


Pendagast wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Pendagast wrote:

Telekinesis allows ranged grapple as well as some of the "hand" spells

Whips and specific feats

Creatures with tentacles and reach

Sounds like people who say you can't range grapple haven't played much?

Nobody is saying ranged grappling is impossible. We are saying that without some special exception you can't do make a grapple without it being a melee attack. Also reach is not the same as ranged. A reach attack such as a tentacle or bite from a large creature is still a melee attack.

Don't be condescending and not know that reach(melee) and ranged are not the same thing.

Telekinesis is still ranged and you can still grapple with it

The OP suggested the only way to grapple should be adjacent foes
A whole bunch jumped in and agreed

A combat manuver by the way is not technically a melee attack, it's done in place of one
Unless it specifically says you can do it as part of a melee attack, like a wolf tripping with a bite

That does nothing to change the fact that it can not normally be ranged attack, and since hands/claws/etc are normally used it is still melee based.

Also telekineses is not a ranged attack when used to grapple. It is a spell that allows you to use a CMB. If it was a ranged attack then cover and so on would matter.

When you are throwing items that is a ranged attack.

But since you just dont want to admit you were too lazy to read past the title consider this conversation over. I don't have time for immature people.


Pendagast wrote:
Grasping hand can do it at 230 feet or more

Spells would fall into the special ability section also, which has also been mentioned, but not reading past the title you would not know that.

#readinghelps


wraithstrike wrote:
If you answered the question in your previous post with regard as to what their answer might be I do apologize for overlooking it.

I did. I made a long post, most of the body of the question was about the consequences of trying to use Hamatula Strike with a longbow. Have another look at it, tell me what you think, and I will accept your apology, whether you agree with me or not.

wraithstrike wrote:
If an FAQ were made what do you think they would say.

Again, I feel that this is a framed question. I feel that supposing the PDT were to intervene with an FAQ or any other kind of official answer presuposes that the PDT is grumpy about the idea. The only reason they would respond at all would be to make some kind of ruling against it. What I think is more constructive, however, is to suppose, hypotheically, that they are reading this now, contemplating it, and then we might predict whether they will make an official ruling or remain silent, which would imply assent. I treated this question thoroughly in my earlier post.

wraithstrike wrote:
edit: I don't know what statement the PDT already made so I am asking will they say yes or no to ranged grappling, even if the character does not have a special weapon, special ability, or magic to help them do it.

I was being saucy. There might be an FAQ or Official Rules Post I am unaware of, but meanwhile. I was saying that "no answer" is an answer.


Chemlak wrote:
Pendagast wrote:

Telekinesis allows ranged grapple as well as some of the "hand" spells

Whips and specific feats

Creatures with tentacles and reach

Sounds like people who say you can't range grapple haven't played much?

No...

What we're saying is that you can't wrangle the rules so that a 1st level monk with nothing in his hands can grapple a target 130 feet away.

Ooh, I wanna do that!


wraithstrike wrote:
But since you just dont want to admit you were too lazy to read past the title consider this conversation over. I don't have time for immature people.

Ahem


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chemlak wrote:


What we're saying is that you can't wrangle the rules so that a 1st level monk with nothing in his hands can grapple a target 130 feet away.

How many people were actually arguing that?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Pendagast wrote:
Grasping hand can do it at 230 feet or more

Actually, Grasping hand do it at 5' from the hand position. The hand can move to a point 230' or more from the caster, but then it attack a target that is adjacent to the hand.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
Chemlak wrote:


What we're saying is that you can't wrangle the rules so that a 1st level monk with nothing in his hands can grapple a target 130 feet away.
How many people were actually arguing that?

This guy, maybe?


I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Chemlak wrote:


What we're saying is that you can't wrangle the rules so that a 1st level monk with nothing in his hands can grapple a target 130 feet away.
How many people were actually arguing that?
This guy, maybe?

Seems like a Monk/ bloodrager(aberration) with the lunge feat.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If you answered the question in your previous post with regard as to what their answer might be I do apologize for overlooking it.

I did. I made a long post, most of the body of the question was about the consequences of trying to use Hamatula Strike with a longbow. Have another look at it, tell me what you think, and I will accept your apology, whether you agree with me or not.

wraithstrike wrote:
If an FAQ were made what do you think they would say.

Again, I feel that this is a framed question. I feel that supposing the PDT were to intervene with an FAQ or any other kind of official answer presuposes that the PDT is grumpy about the idea. The only reason they would respond at all would be to make some kind of ruling against it. What I think is more constructive, however, is to suppose, hypotheically, that they are reading this now, contemplating it, and then we might predict whether they will make an official ruling or remain silent, which would imply assent. I treated this question thoroughly in my earlier post.

wraithstrike wrote:
edit: I don't know what statement the PDT already made so I am asking will they say yes or no to ranged grappling, even if the character does not have a special weapon, special ability, or magic to help them do it.
I was being saucy. There might be an FAQ or Official Rules Post I am unaware of, but meanwhile. I was saying that "no answer" is an answer.

They don't answer unless there is an FAQ. They have not answered questions while being fully aware the question was highly debated, at least not until an FAQ was made. Them not answering doesn't mean anything.

I asked you the question because I want to know if you are saying "I know ranged grapples are not allowed but the book doesn't make it clear", or if you are saying "I am highly confident that ranged grapples are the official intention".

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Tackling this from a different angle :

CRB says : Unless otherwise noted, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver.

CRB about AoOs says : Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down or takes a reckless action. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity.

Also : Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Table: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity.

And : 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.

For Grapple (a combat maneuver) to provoke AoOs (general rule), then it has to be performed within melee range (general rule about AoOs)


Raven, all that means is that if you do perform some sort of ranged/reach grapple then you wouldn't take any op attacks because you are out of the threatened area


Scott if you answer my last question and you say you believe that a character can offically(per intent) make ranged grapple attacks, even though your limbs nor any melee weapon in your possession* can reach them what is the limitation on distance when grappling? Can you grapple someone who is 1000 feet away as long as you can see them?

No matter your reply, even if you see 1 million miles I won't dispute it, assuming you answer the question. I am just curious about what you will say.

*The game references the number of hands free, and the grappling appendage in the grapple section.

PS: I don't know if this needs to be mentioned, but this question also assumes you don't have any spells or other special abilities that specifically allow ranged attacks such as the ability that the archer fighter archetype has. <----In before someone tries to reply with something such as telekinesis, while being fully aware.

PS2: I am not going to make anymore disclaimers like this. If someone tries to twist the words of the person they are replying to or pretend like they do not understand like Pendagast did earlier I think they should just be ignored. <----That resolves a lot of problems in advance, and it trains people that certain comments won't be entertained.


wraithstrike wrote:
per intent

Intent is irrelevant.

We are talking about rules to a the Pathfinder game, not inner meaning of Pathfinder novels. Do you think that Bobby Fisher never did anything Nathaniel Cook wouldn't do? Do you think Serena Williams never does anything Henry VIII never did? Do you think Lockheed Martin ever looks a a new design and says, "No, not Wright Brothers!" We are the players, and we are referees. We decide what happens to the characters and why. We decide what our characters do and why.

In Pathfinder Society games, remember that the players have to pay money to the books to play the game. They buy the right to use what is written in those books. There is not a single rule in any Pathfinder book that was intended. Every single one of them was written.

You may view what I have to say about the rules to the game through the lens that I am only talking about what the rules say, and that my advice is only good advice insofar as you will be allowed to play by the rules. If what I am describing is a problem, then what I am describing is a problem with the rules, and maybe Paizo should fix it. Sometimes they do.

wraithstrike wrote:
Them not answering doesn't mean anything.

They made their statement when they wrote the rules. Until they amend what they wrote by writing more, what they wrote is what I am guided by.

wraithstrike wrote:
"I know ranged grapples are not allowed but the book doesn't make it clear", or if you are saying "I am highly confident that ranged grapples are the official intention".

If the book does not make it clear, then ranged grapples are allowed. The intent of the creators is mostly a matter of speculation. And even if we find a way to technically legally do something that was not intended, that doesn't make it illegal, and there's not necessarily anything wrong with it at all. This is how games are elevated. This game in particular. Pathfinder is first and foremost a game about using your imagination. People who apply the rules immaginatively should be celebrated.

I am highly confident that the official intention of the rules is that they be followed.

I am highly confident that we are meant to use our imaginations.

That is the heart and soul of this game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So you're perfectly okay with 1st level commoners from 4 miles away grappling your character?


wraithstrike wrote:
Can you grapple someone who is 1000 feet away as long as you can see them?

No, clearly, you need some means of reaching them, although reach is not necessarily "Reach."

There are a lot means that have been mentioned for Ranged Grapples. Harpoons, Grappling Arrows, nets, and spells such as Black Tentacles, Strangling Hair, and Web.

Then you and I started talking about Hamatula Strike. A few posts ago, like post #67 on this thread, I offered a post that explored Hamatula Strike used with longbow (or something) thoroughly. You subsequent posts indicate that you have not finished reading that post. Let me remind you,

You wrote:
If you answered the question in your previous post with regard as to what their answer might be I do apologize for overlooking it.

Then

I wrote:
I did. I made a long post, most of the body of the question was about the consequences of trying to use Hamatula Strike with a longbow. Have another look at it, tell me what you think, and I will accept your apology, whether you agree with me or not.

So, I am waiting for you to offer a positive indication that you actually read that post with due diligence. Because, you see, I offered an argument based upon what the rules say, and you seem to be responding by saying that what the rules say doesn't even matter.

You wrote:
offically(per intent)

And I take issue with that happening on a Rules Forum. If I'm mistaken, then please do weigh my rules-based arguments and respond with rules-base arguments of your own.


Chemlak wrote:
So you're perfectly okay with 1st level commoners from 4 miles away grappling your character?

I would consider that to be a bad thing happening to my character. "Okay" is not the word I would normally use.

But would I necessarily cry foul on my GM for doing that? No, I wouldn't.

That commoner would clearly have to employing some mechanism to accomplish that, probably some mechanism that he would not be able to afford himself. But I never met a U.S. Army tank driver who owns his own tank.

Also, remember that what wraithstrike and I were arguing about most recently is the Hamatula Strike Feat, which had the prerequisite of a +7 BAB. A level 1 Commoner can't have HS.

Chemlak wrote:
4 miles

4 miles! That sounds farther than anything we've been discussing--spells, bows, catapults (have we talked about catapults yet?) normally allows. Four miles seems beyond the range of Golorian cannons. I think you'd need at least 19th century cannons to hit at a range of 4 miles.

Your commoner must be using a very special magic item to do that, like some kind of magic teleporting gate thingy through which his throwing his nets and harpoons. Where he even got stuff like that seems like the whole point of the adventure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott wrote:
Intent is irrelevant.

You do a lot of writing for a simple question.

Are you defaulting to "the words in the book trumps intent"?

Please don't give me a 1000 word essay this time. It's a simple question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Okay, talk about talking past each other...

Wraithstrike (and myself, and I'm not touching the Hamatula Strike question) are saying the following: "while it is possible to have abilities (be they spells, feats, equipment, or magic items) which allow it, the general rule is that ranged grappling is not allowed".

This thread isn't about "find the combo that allows it" it's "can a 1st level human commoner with toughness and skill focus (Knowledge (local)) attempt a ranged grapple with her bare hands?". In other words, what is the general rule on ranged grappling?


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Can you grapple someone who is 1000 feet away as long as you can see them?

No, clearly, you need some means of reaching them, although reach is not necessarily "Reach."

There are a lot means that have been mentioned for Ranged Grapples. Harpoons, Grappling Arrows, nets, and spells such as Black Tentacles, Strangling Hair, and Web.

Those spells and class abilities would be special abilities, and I already stated that those were not to be included. We already know those work because they say they work that way.

What we thought you were saying was that even if your limbs could not reach someone, and you had no other way to do get to someone such as spells, grappling arrows, etc etc that you could grapple them anyway.

Nobody was ever saying that you can only use melee based attacks, even if you have something like a spell, weapon, etc etc that specifically says you can make ranged grapples.

Basically creature X with only his limbs, and nothing else can not grapple someone that is outside of his melee attack range<---That was the point being made.

And no they are not special limbs that stretch or count as ranged weapons. <---In before someone says well creature X can do ____.

51 to 100 of 137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Please Tell Me You Can't Ranged Grapple All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.