Please Tell Me You Can't Ranged Grapple


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 137 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

The FAQ does not address this. (At least that I saw)

Core Rulebook 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).

I'm almost certain you're supposed to have the target of the grapple within your reach, but the Core Rulebook doesn't say. I don't know where it does say.

Can someone please tell me where it says this so I can't teleport random people to my location, no matter where they are (even across planar boundaries), simply by grappling them?

I thought it might say so in the general rules describing combat maneuvers, but it doesn't. It just says that a combat maneuver check is like an "attack roll" not a "melee attack roll". While most maneuvers are stated to take the place of a melee attack in an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity, let's not forget that the grappling rules say (emphases added)...

Core Rulebook wrote:
As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options.

Which I think fairly clearly invokes the second half of...

Core Rulebook wrote:
While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action.

Which means that grappling bypasses the melee requirement.

And before everyone complains about me using RAW to break the game, that's not the point. Please read my post and see that I'm trying to figure out where this is not possible because I really don't think it should be.

Though bull rush is ambiguous, it also has phrasing issues of this kind. Feinting has the exact same issue, though it's kind of moot since you have to be in melee to get the bonus.

Silver Crusade

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

-_-


You can't ranged grapple.


Dude, calm down. Its talking about creatures with 10'+ reach.

The 'specific actions' are referring to special attacks/spells/abilities that start a grapple, like black tentacles.


Ridiculon wrote:
Dude, calm down. Its talking about creatures with 10'+ reach.

Where? I'm asking for the citation. I know that's what it should be, but where is that stated?

Ridiculon wrote:
The 'specific actions' are referring to special attacks/spells/abilities that start a grapple, like black tentacles.

I'm inclined to think they would have phrased this a little better if that's what they meant, instead of using it as a way to ensure you couldn't grapple during a full attack. Along the lines of "A combat maneuver can also be triggered by a spells, special abilities, or special attacks." Right now, they're ensuring that grappling takes up your standard action, but the phrasing ends up with the aforementioned unintended consequence.


SanKeshun wrote:
Can someone please tell me where it says this so I can't teleport random people to my location, no matter where they are (even across planar boundaries), simply by grappling them?

What do you mean? Has there ever been ANYTHING suggesting I can't? No? Didn't think so! Now, get over here!


The rules are silent to my knowledge. But since hamatula strike doesn't mention melee attacks somebody could argue that ranged grapple checks are allowed. Perhaps the only way to harpooning someone in PF.


It probably should have specified melee, but there are cases of a ranged grapple, like a barbed arrow.


Rub-Eta wrote:
SanKeshun wrote:
Can someone please tell me where it says this so I can't teleport random people to my location, no matter where they are (even across planar boundaries), simply by grappling them?
What do you mean? Has there ever been ANYTHING suggesting I can't? No? Didn't think so! Now, get over here!

Yes, boss.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Ranged grapple?

Harpoon


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

White haired witches can!

"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."

Our GM ruled that it doesn't stack with size. And 'yes', it came up in game!


Is this PFS legal? My Brawler is going to be incredibly happy.


I hadn't considered harpooning as a reason though. Still, would've thought the rules about needing an appropriate weapon or something would have been more clear.

And why does Hamatula Strike with a longbow give you the grappled condition?


Weables wrote:
You can't ranged grapple.

Thanks for telling me what I wanted to hear. ;)

(Silliness aside, a citation would be excellent)


SanKeshun wrote:
Ridiculon wrote:
Dude, calm down. Its talking about creatures with 10'+ reach.

Where? I'm asking for the citation. I know that's what it should be, but where is that stated?

You have to read the whole paragraph:

Performing a Combat Maneuver:
When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action. Unless otherwise noted, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver. If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver. If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds (treat as if you rolled a natural 20 on the attack roll). If your target is stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll to perform a combat maneuver against it.

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.

In most cases the 'weapon' used to perform a grapple combat maneuver is going to be your hands/claws/tentacles, which use your base reach. If you find a ranged weapon that has a grapple property/ability you can use that instead.

SanKeshun wrote:


Ridiculon wrote:
The 'specific actions' are referring to special attacks/spells/abilities that start a grapple, like black tentacles.
I'm inclined to think they would have phrased this a little better if that's what they meant, instead of using it as a way to ensure you couldn't grapple during a full attack. Along the lines of "A combat maneuver can also be triggered by a spells, special abilities, or special attacks." Right now, they're ensuring that grappling takes up your standard action, but the phrasing ends up with the aforementioned unintended consequence.

They don't have to specify in the general grapple rule (that's why its a general rule), the specific spell/ability will do that.


I'll take it. Still a little sketchy, imo, since grapple specifically is not a form of attack, but a separate standard action. In addition, a creature with natural weapons doesn't have to specify which natural weapon it's using to grapple (even though some have different reach, which would matter).

But still. Thanks, Ridiculon. That's close enough.

I'll still appreciate it if anyone else can pull out a completely unambiguous ruling - this is probably the best, but the grapple phrasing is still problematic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Of course there's is the telekinesis grapple, which is ranged, but doesn't draw your opponents next to you automatically.


SanKeshun wrote:

I'll take it. Still a little sketchy, imo, since grapple specifically is not a form of attack, but a separate standard action. In addition, a creature with natural weapons doesn't have to specify which natural weapon it's using to grapple (even though some have different reach, which would matter).

But still. Thanks, Ridiculon. That's close enough.

I'll still appreciate it if anyone else can pull out a completely unambiguous ruling - this is probably the best, but the grapple phrasing is still problematic.

Actually grappling is a form of attack. Combat maneuvers are part of a subset of attacks called Special Attacks(Attacks>Special Attacks>Combat Maneuvers>Grapple), they aren't completely separate. That means that all the rules that apply to attacks apply to Special Attacks, though almost all of them are overruled by the more specific rules of the individual Special Attacks. If you re-read the rules for combat maneuvers you'll notice that you get phrases like:
Combat Maneuvers wrote:
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus.

This is an example of a specific rule replacing part of the more general rule it falls under.

In short, ranged grapples are a thing because ranged attacks are a thing, but you have to have specific wording on the ranged ability or weapon you are using that says you can make a grapple check (just like any other weapon for any other combat maneuver).

(Also, the range at which the character with the natural attacks wishes to make the grapple check will give away which attack they are using. If the grapple is being made in the overlapping range just ask them to specify)


These aren't exactly ranged Grapples, but they sort of are: Strangling Hair Spell, Web, Black Tentacles.


Bwang wrote:

White haired witches can!

"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."

Our GM ruled that it doesn't stack with size. And 'yes', it came up in game!

Azih wrote:
Is this PFS legal? My Brawler is going to be incredibly happy.

Yes.


What about Hamtula strike + Any ranged piercing weapon?


Ridiculon wrote:
Actually grappling is a form of attack. Combat maneuvers are part of a subset of attacks called Special Attacks(Attacks>Special Attacks>Combat Maneuvers>Grapple), they aren't completely separate. That means that all the rules that apply to attacks apply to Special Attacks, though almost all of them are overruled by the more specific rules of the individual Special Attacks.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree, again because of the wording of the grappling rules. What follows is my argument for why:

Core Rulebook wrote:
When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action.
Also,
Core Rulebook wrote:
This section [Special Attacks] discusses all of the various standard maneuvers you can perform during combat other than normal attacks, casting spells, or using other class abilities. Some of these special attacks can be made as part of another action (such as an attack) or as an attack of opportunity.
Don't forget,
Core Rulebook wrote:
Some combat maneuvers substitute for a melee attack, not an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full-attack action, or even as an attack of opportunity. Others are used as a separate action.
And for good measure,
Core Rulebook wrote:
As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe...

Now to explain why I cited all of these.

The first quote says that each combat maneuver has an action that is required to activate it. These vary by combat maneuver. The second quote clearly states that special attacks are not attacks (at least the standard attack-roll-damage-roll variety) (note the "other than normal attacks" phrase), though some work in a similar fashion. Thirdly, a footnote on the table of different types of actions implies that not all combat maneuvers are attack actions. Finally, the grapple rules state that they are their own thing. I do not know of any other way to interpret something saying it is a standard action as opposed to, say, "in place of a melee attack" or "as an attack action" or "as part of a full-attack action."

I agree that most combat maneuvers do fall into the attack -> Special Attack -> Maneuver hierarchy, but because grapple is specifically separating itself, I can't include it there. Otherwise I would have passed this whole issue off as "have to do it with a weapon; weapon has to reach them".

To preemptively address 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.


Firewarrior44 wrote:
What about Hamtula strike + Any ranged piercing weapon?

I wondered about this too. Best I can figure, you do grapple them, but you gain the grappled condition as well. Go figure.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Grapple is a word in the English language: engage in a close fight or struggle without weapons; wrestle.

The designers of the game foolishly thought that using this term would make it clear what they were talking about.


As all combat maneuvers use attack rolls, there's a bit of an implication that they work like attacks. But maybe they work like ranged attacks....i can bull rush something from range (without use of a ranged weapon) right? Or similar with dirty trick? They all only specify "target" and most can be done as their own action, with no range specification...

Okay I'm sorry for feeding the fire. Why is this a question? Do you really need complete, airtight rules clarification that you can only attempt combat maneuvers against a target within your reach? Really? Or are you just trying to play a linguistics game, mocking the core rules because in their thousands of pages there happen to be some instances that, clear as their intent is, are not written in legalese?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
These aren't exactly ranged Grapples, but they sort of are: Strangling Hair Spell, Web, Black Tentacles.

Similarly Greater Whip Mastery lets you use a whip to melee grapple at a distance.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

The archer fighter archetype can range grapple:

PRD wrote:

Trick Shot (Ex): At 3rd level, an archer can choose one of the following combat maneuvers or actions: disarm, feint, or sunder. He can perform this action with a bow against any target within 30 feet, with a –4 penalty to his CMB. Every four levels beyond 3rd, he may choose an additional trick shot to learn. These maneuvers use up arrows as normal.

At 11th level, he may also choose from the following combat maneuvers: bull rush, grapple, trip. A target grappled by an arrow can break free by destroying the archer's arrow (hardness 5, hit points 1, break DC 13) or with an Escape Artist or CMB check (against the archer's CMD –4). This ability replaces armor training 1, 2, 3, and 4.

The implication is that normally one cannot do these maneuvers with a bow.


Dave Justus wrote:

Grapple is a word in the English language: engage in a close fight or struggle without weapons; wrestle.

The designers of the game foolishly thought that using this term would make it clear what they were talking about.

Incorrect. Here, Grapple is a technical term for the pathfinder game and refers to a group of set of rules for an special action whiting the game. That's why grappling with a whip, an harpoon or an arrow is a thing even if that goes against what you wrote.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Can anyone cite the rule saying I don't cause nuclear holocausts by inhaling helium?


Ridiculon wrote:
Dude, calm down. Its talking about creatures with 10'+ reach.

Or special equipment.


Nicos wrote:
Dave Justus wrote:

Grapple is a word in the English language: engage in a close fight or struggle without weapons; wrestle.

The designers of the game foolishly thought that using this term would make it clear what they were talking about.

Incorrect. Here, Grapple is a technical term for the pathfinder game and refers to a group of set of rules for an special action whiting the game. That's why grappling with a whip, an harpoon or an arrow is a thing even if that goes against what you wrote.

Only partially accurate. The Grapple mechanics and Grappled Conditions are technical elements to use the commonly understood concept and make it work in the game. Pretending that 'Grapple' in pathfinder is divorced completely from the term in nonsensical, and the grappling rules were plainly written with the idea that a basic understanding of what a grapple is is part of the concepts.

There are indeed rules for applying these mechanics and conditions outside the normal understanding of the term. Those special rules for special situations reinforce, rather than go against, the idea that the basic concept of what a grapple is is implicit in the rules for them.

If 'grapple' is meaningless and divorced from the idea of unarmed wrestling, then you don't need special rules for a whip, a harpoon or anything else, and indeed the ranged teleport effect by grappling someone across the continent would be as valid as anything else.

That is clearly not the case though, and the reason it isn't the case is that the an expectation of an understanding of the common meaning of words is built into the rule-set.

There are specific 'terms-of-art' whose meaning is expanded and perhaps even somewhat changed from common usage in the game, but that doesn't mean that basic English literacy isn't important when reading the rules (see no penalties for the Dead condition).


SanKeshun wrote:
Ridiculon wrote:
Actually grappling is a form of attack. Combat maneuvers are part of a subset of attacks called Special Attacks(Attacks>Special Attacks>Combat Maneuvers>Grapple), they aren't completely separate. That means that all the rules that apply to attacks apply to Special Attacks, though almost all of them are overruled by the more specific rules of the individual Special Attacks.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree, again because of the wording of the grappling rules. What follows is my argument for why:

Core Rulebook wrote:
When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action.
Also,
Core Rulebook wrote:
This section [Special Attacks] discusses all of the various standard maneuvers you can perform during combat other than normal attacks, casting spells, or using other class abilities. Some of these special attacks can be made as part of another action (such as an attack) or as an attack of opportunity.
Don't forget,
Core Rulebook wrote:
Some combat maneuvers substitute for a melee attack, not an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full-attack action, or even as an attack of opportunity. Others are used as a separate action.
And for good measure,
Core Rulebook wrote:
As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe...

Now to explain why I cited all of these.

The first quote says that each combat maneuver has an action that is required to activate it. These vary by combat maneuver. The second quote clearly states that special attacks are not attacks (at least the standard attack-roll-damage-roll variety) (note the "other than normal attacks" phrase), though some work in a similar fashion. Thirdly, a footnote on the table of different types of actions implies that not all combat maneuvers are attack actions. Finally, the grapple rules state that they are their own thing. I do not know of any other way to interpret something saying it is a standard action as opposed to, say, "in place of a melee attack" or "as an attack action" or "as part of a full-attack action."

I agree that most combat maneuvers do fall into the attack -> Special Attack -> Maneuver hierarchy, but because grapple is specifically separating itself, I can't include it there. Otherwise I would have passed this whole issue off as "have to do it with a weapon; weapon has to reach them".

To preemptively address 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.

*Sigh*, no. Grapple (along with all the other CM's) is definitely an attack. But as I said, it is not a normal attack, so pointing out all the differences between it and a normal attack isn't actually a counter argument to my claim. In the rules Special attacks are a subset of normal attacks, all the way down to grapple. It follows the same rules as a normal attack, except that it replaces your BAB with your CMB in the roll, and replaces dealing damage (without feats/archetypes anyway) with applying conditions. The standard action is just a way to show that grappling takes slightly more effort than a normal attack and cannot be combined with a full-attack. All examples of the more specific rules for grapple overruling the more general rules for attacks.

Unarmed Strikes are always considered light weapons:

CRB- Weapons wrote:

Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling. Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength modifier if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength modifier applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only.

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.

Which is the reason that you can perform combat maneuvers with them (among several other things).


Ridiculon wrote:

Dude, calm down. Its talking about creatures with 10'+ reach.

The 'specific actions' are referring to special attacks/spells/abilities that start a grapple, like black tentacles.

Giant Octopus - 20' reach with 8 tentacle attacks, each with the grab ability. Doesn't do a lot of damage but it will clear the deck of your pirate ship incredibly quickly.


Yeah, but remember you have to spread that reach out over the whole LoE. I think the smallest ship (not rowboat) has a deck about 10' above the water, so assuming your octopus is in the water that gives it a 10' range from the edge of the deck. Still pretty terrifying though.


@Ridiculon
A) I get the feeling you didn't read my post. My point isn't that grappling is different from a normal attack. It's that grappling falls outside the rules of special attacks. That's why every step of the hierarchy allows for exceptions - because grappling is an exception (please look at what I cited if you disagree with this).

B) I never said an unarmed strike was not a weapon. Again, thanks for reading what I said. The point of that bit was, "unarmed strike has no weapon properties besides nonlethal, and yet it can perform every combat maneuver." See the next point for more commentary on this.

C) There is, however, another piece of the rules that supports what you're saying, but for the issue of unarmed strike. You've already cited it - that the bonuses you apply to your CMB when attempting a combat maneuver check must be applicable to the weapon you're using to attempt it. This implies that all combat maneuvers require a weapon. However, again, unarmed strike can perform all combat maneuvers despite the fact that it shouldn't be allowed to. That might at least move the issue out of the combat maneuver rules and into needing a sentence to clarify unarmed strike as being special. But if not, we still have the issue of being able to perform combat maneuvers without a valid weapon, which throws that whole rule into question.

@Rainshe, my point isn't to mock Pathfinder for this. I do think it's there, though, and I do think it can be fixed, which I don't see as a bad thing. That's why we have errata in the first place. It could be as simple as changing "As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe..." to "You can attempt to grapple a foe as a standard action..."
If you want the linguistics game (actually the semantics game, but whatever), the switch in the active noun makes it clear that grappling is not inheriting meaning from standard action, which removes the ambiguity I'm targeting because of the hierarchy that Ridiculon and I keep citing.
I posted here to see if this had already been dealt with. I don't know all of the rules, but as a community, there's a good chance someone will pull out whatever's relevant. Honestly, Ridiculon and I are far enough into technicalities I don't think anyone will care, so it won't be thrown in. But hey. Now there's a thread for when some obnoxious player pulls this on their GM.

@Paradozen, Nope! That one's all good! Without silliness, yeah, I understand this is absurd (pretty sure I said so in the OP). The reason I'm targeting this is because there are rules on it, so it doesn't fall back on universal common sense.


I... don't think you really understand what a hierarchy is. A grapple is a combat maneuver. All combat maneuvers are special attacks. All special attacks are attacks. Therefore, all grapples are attacks and special attacks.

∀G --> CM
and ∀CM --> SA
and ∀SA --> A

then ∀G --> SA
and ∀G --> A

I'm not trying to be an ass but this is the best way i can explain it, this is how the pathfinder rule hierarchy works. Every rule at the top level applies to every level underneath it, any conflict is resolved with the lower level rule replacing the conflicting piece of the higher level rule.


Isn't that taking the statement out of context, saying that grappling derives meaning from standard action, despite its location in the rules being related to combat maneuvers (hence special attacks, hence attacks)? Besides, "as a standard action" is a prepositional phrase that can be thrown anywhere in the sentance without changing the subject. Eg "you can, as a standard action, attempt to grapple a foe..."


SanKeshun wrote:
The reason I'm targeting this is because there are rules on it, so it doesn't fall back on universal common sense.

There are rules for nuclear holocausts (Radiation rules anyway), and rules for inhaling (well, at least for what happens when you stop). While helium specifically doesn't have rules that I am aware of, rules for harmful* inhaled substances are in the poison section. None of these say that they are inherently related or unrelated, but it is firmly implied that they aren't. Then common sense says "that doesn't make sense" and the GM/PFS table GM of the day says no.


The ordering of the phrase gives precedence to the standard action over grappling which messes up the hierarchy. It's the exact problem I saw in the first place. Switching the order on the phrase makes it clear.

My whole schtick here is that the phrasing on grapple sets it apart from the normal rules hierarchy, which means rules that ought to apply to it don't. As Rainshe comments, context and the phrase go against each other, so it is I find it ambiguous. (Edited to avoid putting words in other people's mouths)

As for understanding hierarchies, I'll admit I'm more used to trees from CompSci, but they're synonyms, though CompSci trees usually mean binary search trees, which this isn't. Actually, better concept might be inheritance, but that's beside the point.

Are either of you familiar with Twodee? It's a weird way of writing sentences, but it might make this clearer. The problem sentence could be written with "as a standard action" in-line with the rest, or separate (So "As a standard action..." <line break> "...you can..."). Second one is giving a definition to what grappling is. The other is adding a specification of grappling.

Inform7 is another way to write this out differently. For example: "An action can be standard or exceptional. Understand 'grapple' as grappling. All actions have a text called time to use." Then we have two different ways of adding in the problem sentence, either "Grappling is a standard action." or "the time to use of Grappling is 'Standard.'"

Does any of that make sense?


Paradozen wrote:
SanKeshun wrote:
The reason I'm targeting this is because there are rules on it, so it doesn't fall back on universal common sense.
There are rules for nuclear holocausts (Radiation rules anyway), and rules for inhaling (well, at least for what happens when you stop). While helium specifically doesn't have rules that I am aware of, rules for harmful* inhaled substances are in the poison section. None of these say that they are inherently related or unrelated, but it is firmly implied that they aren't. Then common sense says "that doesn't make sense" and the GM/PFS table GM of the day says no.

These are subtly different circumstances, I want to say. You're drawing on rules from different sections and, depending on version of the rules for each bit of that, different books. I read a paragraph and found an issue. Yes, both of these could be governed by common sense. GMs are expected to use common sense in these situations. But it's a little bit different.

I'll admit the OP used an overly dramatic example. But what about the guy 5 feet outside your reach? Actually, don't answer that. I can kind of guess I'll get a joke about taking 1d6 fire damage if you only inhale a little helium being.

Point is, all of the problem I saw came from the grappling rules, so I see these as slightly different circumstances. I usually don't equate "having rules for something" as "having rules for that thing somewhere in these tomes."

Which is basically a long rant to try and avoid saying, "Yeah, pretty much."


I am also of zee compsci's (although i am not familiar with Twodee or Inform7), my dream side-project currently is to create a model of the pathfinder ruleset so that the hierarchy is self enforcing and we can see conflicts immediately upon entering a new rule. If you are at all interested in helping with that we should talk (although I must warn you it is in the idea stage, i haven't put any thought into actual implementation)

SanKeshun wrote:

The ordering of the phrase gives precedence to the standard action over grappling which messes up the hierarchy. It's the exact problem I saw in the first place. Switching the order on the phrase makes it clear.

My whole schtick here is that the phrasing on grapple sets it apart from the normal rules hierarchy, which means rules that ought to apply to it don't. As Rainshe comments, context and the phrase go against each other, so it is I find it ambiguous. (Edited to avoid putting words in other people's mouths)

But anyway, I think i see what the problem is here. Attacks are standard actions (go here and look under the bolded Standard Action header). The fact that grapples are also standard actions is a given, not a break in the hierarchy.

The whole hierarchy looks like this: Combat> Actions in Combat> Standard Actions> Attacks> Special Attacks> Combat Maneuvers> Grapple(s)> Grapple(Move/Damage/Pin)

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This thread reminds me of the fact that there are absolutely no penalties associated with the "dead" condition.


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

It does keep you from stabilizing when dying and doesn't actually remove the dying condition. The rules often reference "dying, but not dead".


If you want to ranged grapple, get yourself a Heavy/Light Crank Crossbow with Grappling/Barbed Bolts.


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.


SanKeshun wrote:
Paradozen wrote:
SanKeshun wrote:
The reason I'm targeting this is because there are rules on it, so it doesn't fall back on universal common sense.
There are rules for nuclear holocausts (Radiation rules anyway), and rules for inhaling (well, at least for what happens when you stop). While helium specifically doesn't have rules that I am aware of, rules for harmful* inhaled substances are in the poison section. None of these say that they are inherently related or unrelated, but it is firmly implied that they aren't. Then common sense says "that doesn't make sense" and the GM/PFS table GM of the day says no.

These are subtly different circumstances, I want to say. You're drawing on rules from different sections and, depending on version of the rules for each bit of that, different books. I read a paragraph and found an issue. Yes, both of these could be governed by common sense. GMs are expected to use common sense in these situations. But it's a little bit different.

I'll admit the OP used an overly dramatic example. But what about the guy 5 feet outside your reach? Actually, don't answer that. I can kind of guess I'll get a joke about taking 1d6 fire damage if you only inhale a little helium being.

Point is, all of the problem I saw came from the grappling rules, so I see these as slightly different circumstances. I usually don't equate "having rules for something" as "having rules for that thing somewhere in these tomes."

Which is basically a long rant to try and avoid saying, "Yeah, pretty much."

For a less snarky answer, the reason a ranged grapple isn't a thing normally is reliant on a few things.

One, the idea in which the rules tell you what you can do. Not what you can't. This isn't a written rule, but is how most rules in games work because there are far too many things you cannot do (like the helium fallout above).

Two is the fact that the rules for ranged attacks reference things such as range increments, maximum range, penalties for having things in the way, etc. Were grapple to work at a range then some or all of these would be referenced to say that you can use them at a range. This point is admittedly not terribly important to the reason you cannot, but is at the least highly suspicious.

Three is the fact that it doesn't generally make sense. You aknowledged this, as everyone else has. No need to hash it out much further, except for the fact that the rules try to bound the nonmagical parts of the game to realism. Whether or not it should is a matter of taste (I think it shouldn't past about lv. 6, for the record), but it does tend to. Its why things like high jumps are rather difficult.

Four is the most important, other things need to explicitly state they allow ranged grappling. Were it a general rule that grapple worked at range, things like an archer's Trick Shot, or specific items like Harpoons wouldn't say that anymore. They would either never have been in or would be errata'd out to save print space for more important/useful/fun rules than saying "you can do the thing you can normally do."


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.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ridiculon wrote:

I... don't think you really understand what a hierarchy is. A grapple is a combat maneuver. All combat maneuvers are special attacks. All special attacks are attacks. Therefore, all grapples are attacks and special attacks.

∀G --> CM
and ∀CM --> SA
and ∀SA --> A

then ∀G --> SA
and ∀G --> A

I'm not trying to be an ass but this is the best way i can explain it, this is how the pathfinder rule hierarchy works. Every rule at the top level applies to every level underneath it, any conflict is resolved with the lower level rule replacing the conflicting piece of the higher level rule.

Just to help:

PRD wrote:


Special Attacks

This section discusses all of the various standard maneuvers you can perform during combat other than normal attacks, casting spells, or using other class abilities. Some of these special attacks can be made as part of another action (such as an attack) or as an attack of opportunity.

So everything under that paragraph is an attack.

PRD wrote:


Combat Maneuvers

During combat, you can attempt to perform a number of maneuvers that can hinder or even cripple your foe, including bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, sunder, and trip. Although these maneuvers have vastly different results, they all use a similar mechanic to determine success.

List of maneuvers, all under the Special attacks heading.

PRD wrote:


Performing a Combat Maneuver: When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action.

And that is the part SanKeshun misread.

It is not saying that some combat maneuver isn't a attack, it is saying that you can't use as part of an attack action or a AoO, but you must use a specific kind of action.

Attack action =/= Attack (game term) =/= attacking (dictionary definition)

When grappling you attack someone, but you don't use the Attack action, so you can't make 1 grapple attempt for each iterative attack you have.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I recall a rule in some of the items that make a ranged grapple saying that you drag the target toward you by 5' every round, I am leaving but will try to find it later.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

3) There needs to be no other penalties... because a soul is still a creature. A dead creature still can move, still can speak, still can act(just not with their body)... but they find themselves in another plane as part of the death process. Much of this can be found in information on the planes. There is even a template for such creatures.

Honestly, death is handled in Pathfinder pretty well. It just isn't all in one spot.

Not that some people won't argue that the sky is green just because they aren't currently looking at it. >.<

I'm not saying you would be one to make the argument that death doesn't prevent you from acting normal... I'm speaking about those who have.

1 to 50 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.