| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
dragon grappled me with his bite, can i still provide a flanking bonus?
Yes.
"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)."
"Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that doesn't require two hands to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you."
"Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus."
So, you're moved to an adjacent square and you threaten the creature grappling you. Flanking successful.
Grappling stops you from making attacks of opportunity. It doesn't say it stops you from threatening (which is based on whether or not you can make melee attacks at nearby squares).
well i have a light weapon, (claws)
All the wordage in "if you are grappled" makes the assumption it's your turn to act. It doesn't ever state you don't threaten, just states you can't make AoOs due to the grappled condition. So, I'd say flanking is fair. Because if you have a usable weapon AND are able to attack your grappled from and adjacent square, then he is threated.
But as Stephen said, it's all about how you read the text.
If you decide because you can't make AoOs, then it's because you aren't able to threaten, then no. If you read it as text, it never says you don't threaten nor declares you can't provide flanking.
here's a separate thought, for those that say it doesn't say you don't count as flanking, wouldn't think make it so that the universal monster ability: Grab, would become less if not entirely useless? I mean if the creature uses its ability to grab any precision damage dealer like a rogue could move up it and attack the grappler correct?
here's a separate thought, for those that say it doesn't say you don't count as flanking, wouldn't think make it so that the universal monster ability: Grab, would become less if not entirely useless? I mean if the creature uses its ability to grab any precision damage dealer like a rogue could move up it and attack the grappler correct?
I'm not following your train of thought.
Grab is good because it gives you a free grapple check on an attack and can let you grapple someone without gaining the grappled condition.
None of that is affected by whether or not you can flank someone.
here's a separate thought, for those that say it doesn't say you don't count as flanking, wouldn't think make it so that the universal monster ability: Grab, would become less if not entirely useless? I mean if the creature uses its ability to grab any precision damage dealer like a rogue could move up it and attack the grappler correct?I'm not following your train of thought.
Grab is good because it gives you a free grapple check on an attack and can let you grapple someone without gaining the grappled condition.
None of that is affected by whether or not you can flank someone.
well that's the thing my group talked about afterwards. If a creature who has grab uses grab and holds an ally of the party fighting it, it now means that if another alley moves behind the creature then they get flanking bonuses, and if that person were say a rogue then they can get precision damage like sneak attack.
Hopefully you're not confusing the term "pinned" with grappled. Pinned characters are restrained. Grappled are not.
The Monster ability "Grab" IS generally useless unless you have several Grapple Feats/abilities to go with it.
But yes, the ruling that you are threatening for flanking the creature that grapples you makes Grab go from generally useless (slow suicide) to a complete death sentence (fast suicide).
Newbie GM question:
What feats or abilities would you recommend?(I'm now running a lot of monsters with Grab, and it LOOKS spiffy... I suppose that's in a party without precision damage, though.)
Hopefully you're not confusing the term "pinned" with grappled. Pinned characters are restrained. Grappled are not.
No one was ever pinned but I don't see that being a argument point. I was grappled i could still attack with my claw hand, but my buddy who moved behind the monster wants to flank the creature for sneak attack purposes. The DM said that's not going to happen because im grappled and is no longer a threat so i shouldn't provide flanking bonuses. The rules don't say I do provide flanking while being grappled but they don't say I don't either.
I see nothing in the rules that prevents flanking while grappled.
AoO's have nothing to do with flanking. The only connection is that both require you to be able to threaten a square.
It depends on how you read the text.
I read the rule as saying you threaten any square you can make a melee attack into when it's not your turn. i.e. you have to be able to make theorectical AOO's into the square.
Which would mean that when grappled you don't threaten.-----------
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.
---------------------------Note if it only required the ability to make a melee attack in your turn then even unarmed characters without IUS would still threaten.
If you can threaten when grappled it would be the only situation I know of where you can't make AOOs but still threaten.
I'm inclined to agree with this reasoning. The key is the "even when it is not your turn" portion. Also, the definition is found under the Attacks of Opportunity headline.
So... in tonight's game the dragon swallowed our monk (He was happy in there, turns out it was much softer inside than out). Does he provide flanking for the rest of us?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grappling stops you from making attacks of opportunity. It doesn't say it stops you from threatening (which is based on whether or not you can make melee attacks at nearby squares).
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.
So, you threaten during your turn, as you can make a melee attack while grappled, but you don't threaten off turn as you can't make a melle attack off turn (you can't make an AoO while grappled).
So you flank during your turn, but don't give a flank bonus off turn.
Remember there are two ways to parse:
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.
Some people read this as:
Even when it is not your turn, you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack.
Some people read this as:
The squares you threaten are: all squares into which you can make a melee attack even when it is not your turn.
Remember there are two ways to parse:
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.Some people read this as:
Even when it is not your turn, you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack.
Some people read this as:
The squares you threaten are: all squares into which you can make a melee attack even when it is not your turn.
I think I this makes the most sense out of the beckering.
So, you threaten during your turn, as you can make a melee attack while grappled, but you don't threaten off turn as you can't make a melle attack off turn (you can't make an AoO while grappled).
So you flank during your turn, but don't give a flank bonus off turn.
Using this interpretation people who have taken an opportunity attack who do not have combat reflexes no longer threaten out of their turn and don't provide a flank as they are out of opportunity attacks.
No, I don't see it that way, that person regardless of not having combat reflexes isn't inflicted with the grapple condition which is preventing him from taking AoO, the fact that he took a opportunity attack already shows that he threatened all adjacent squares?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
well that's the thing my group talked about afterwards. If a creature who has grab uses grab and holds an ally of the party fighting it, it now means that if another alley moves behind the creature then they get flanking bonuses, and if that person were say a rogue then they can get precision damage like sneak attack.here's a separate thought, for those that say it doesn't say you don't count as flanking, wouldn't think make it so that the universal monster ability: Grab, would become less if not entirely useless? I mean if the creature uses its ability to grab any precision damage dealer like a rogue could move up it and attack the grappler correct?I'm not following your train of thought.
Grab is good because it gives you a free grapple check on an attack and can let you grapple someone without gaining the grappled condition.
None of that is affected by whether or not you can flank someone.
Nothing says definitely you can't flank.
Grappled obviously states you can't make AoO, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can't flank. The connection as Wraithstrike mentions is threatening, but I'm nto sure it's a strong enough argument to deny flanking.
As far as I can tell, a creature that is grappled can flank with someone. However, once you are pinned I would say you definitely cannot provide flanking.
It's important to remember that while rounds are broken into discrete turns, it's because this is a game which can only be run if turns exist. Otherwise, it becomes impossible to run. Combat is a simulation, and from narrative perspective the entire round is occurring at simultaneously over 6 seconds.
|
No, I don't see it that way, that person regardless of not having combat reflexes isn't inflicted with the grapple condition which is preventing him from taking AoO, the fact that he took a opportunity attack already shows that he threatened all adjacent squares?So, you threaten during your turn, as you can make a melee attack while grappled, but you don't threaten off turn as you can't make a melle attack off turn (you can't make an AoO while grappled).
So you flank during your turn, but don't give a flank bonus off turn.
Using this interpretation people who have taken an opportunity attack who do not have combat reflexes no longer threaten out of their turn and don't provide a flank as they are out of opportunity attacks.
But if you say the language "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn." means that you only threaten squares while you are currently able to attack those squares. (So someone who is grappled is unable to attack those squares any time it is not their turn, therefore they do not provide a flank). Then that would also mean that anyone that has used all of their AoO's for the round (Most likely meaning they do not have combat reflexes and have made 1 AoO.) That now means that person no longer provides a flank until their next turn. With their 1 AoO spent, they are now unable to attack any squares until their next turn.
This is the logic I would present to any GM that tried to rule that I do not threaten a square simply because i am unable to attack into it when it's not my turn. The meaning of Threatening a Square is that you threaten any square into which you can make a melee attack. You also continue to threaten these squares even when it is not your turn. Nothing within the description of threaten squares says that you ever lose the ability to threaten squares simply because you have no attacks remaining in a round. So unless another effect says you no longer threaten squares, then being able to take the action at that particular moment doesn't matter, only that you are normally able to attack.
|
|
No, I don't see it that way, that person regardless of not having combat reflexes isn't inflicted with the grapple condition which is preventing him from taking AoO, the fact that he took a opportunity attack already shows that he threatened all adjacent squares?So, you threaten during your turn, as you can make a melee attack while grappled, but you don't threaten off turn as you can't make a melle attack off turn (you can't make an AoO while grappled).
So you flank during your turn, but don't give a flank bonus off turn.
Using this interpretation people who have taken an opportunity attack who do not have combat reflexes no longer threaten out of their turn and don't provide a flank as they are out of opportunity attacks.
But not having an available AoO would prevent him from taking an AoO just as much as being grappled does.
Same for Fighting with Total Defense. Total Defense prevents you from taking an AoO, it says nothing about preventing you from threating adjacent squares. And you must threaten squares in order to perform an AoO, nothing says you must be able to perform an AoO in order to threaten squares.
Remember initiative order is just a turn based solution to be able to easily handle real-time combat. During a 6 second round it's not that you're able to attack a square for 1 second, then not able to attack the square for 5 seconds while your 4 allies an 1 opponent are acting. Rather it's that you're able to attack the square at any moment during those 5 seconds, however you are only able to potentially land a limited number of attacks during that time unless the the opponent does something to specifically expose themselves.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) Grappling prevents AoOs
2) Grappling does not prevent you from making attacks
3) If you can make attacks then you threaten.
4) There is no provision that you must be able to make AoOs in order to threaten.
Thus, you threaten while grappling.
Putting aside my personal distaste for grappling rules and the debatable situation where a character needs to be in diametral opposite side of the friendly character to give/gain the flank bonus (I've yet to see an example where a character inside enemy squares helps flanking or not, since the basic examples don't approach this kind of scenario), I think the ingame issue could've been avoided easily by the GM.
IIRC the grappler can end the grapple as a free action and he can choose an adyacent legal square to drop the enemy. "As your companion tries to reach the unguarded sides of the dragon, he is swiftly catched by its mighty eyes and suddenly you feel an abrupt movement and found yourself near him in the ground, now you both lie in front of him again".
I could be wrong though.
Oh and btw IMO you don't give/have the flank bonus while you are inside an enemy square.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Using the total defense action prevents you from attacking— including making attacks of opportunity—but you still threaten foes for the purposes of flanking.
This should make it pretty clear that AoO and threatening for flanking are not linked.
Putting aside my personal distaste for grappling rules and the debatable situation where a character needs to be in diametral opposite side of the friendly character to give/gain the flank bonus (I've yet to see an example where a character inside enemy squares helps flanking or not, since the basic examples don't approach this kind of scenario), I think the ingame issue could've been avoided easily by the GM.
IIRC the grappler can end the grapple as a free action and he can choose an adyacent legal square to drop the enemy. "As your companion tries to reach the unguarded sides of the dragon, he is swiftly catched by its mighty eyes and suddenly you feel an abrupt movement and found yourself near him in the ground, now you both lie in front of him again".
I could be wrong though.
Oh and btw IMO you don't give/have the flank bonus while you are inside an enemy square.
There is no rules support for releasing a grappled creature and placing them in an adjacent square of your choice. You may be thinking of a previous edition of the rules.
In Pathfinder, when you successfully grapple someone they are brought next to you, but after that point you do not control their position without a rule or ability that states you do.
Additionally, being released from a grapple does not make you prone, something you seem to indicate in your 'story example'.
There is no rules support for releasing a grappled creature and placing them in an adjacent square of your choice. You may be thinking of a previous edition of the rules.
Yes, there is. As you point out, a grappled creature is moved to an adjacent square of your choice. You can immediately, as a free action, release them in that square.
Even you do not choose to release them, they are unable to move [and therefore stuck in the square of your choice] as long as they are grappled.
There is no rules support for releasing a grappled creature and placing them in an adjacent square of your choice. You may be thinking of a previous edition of the rules.Yes, there is. As you point out, a grappled creature is moved to an adjacent square of your choice. You can immediately, as a free action, release them in that square.
Even you do not choose to release them, they are unable to move [and therefore stuck in the square of your choice] as long as they are grappled.
That is not what he said, he said that he was placing them in a square as part of releasing them. Not as part of the initial grapple.
Additionally, please do not quote my post out of context. I specifically stated that he can be placed in an adjacent square as part of the grapple. Just like you did.
Stephen Ede, thanks for answering me. I'm pretty confused, so I've posted this new thread over on Advice so as to not hijack this thread. I hope you answer me there!
Oh and btw IMO you don't give/have the flank bonus while you are inside an enemy square.
The fact that an archetype* exists which explicitly grants a flank from within an enemy's square supports your assertion.
*Swashbuckler (Mouser)
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn.
I believe that the common misunderstanding of this rule stems from applying the bolded portion to the wrong word. That phrase modifies "threaten". You could read the sentence as "You threaten (even when it is not your turn) all squares into which you can make a melee attack."
Using the total defense action prevents you from attacking— including making attacks of opportunity—but you still threaten foes for the purposes of flanking.This should make it pretty clear that AoO and threatening for flanking are not linked.
I'm sold. It was hazy for a second how to interpret, but this proves it. Flanking approved while grappled.
Using the total defense action prevents you from attacking— including making attacks of opportunity—but you still threaten foes for the purposes of flanking.This should make it pretty clear that AoO and threatening for flanking are not linked.
This.
Also consider that even after you have used your AoOs for the round you don't stop threatening.
The Monster ability "Grab" IS generally useless unless you have several Grapple Feats/abilities to go with it.
But yes, the ruling that you are threatening for flanking the creature that grapples you makes Grab go from generally useless (slow suicide) to a complete death sentence (fast suicide).
Newbie GM question:
What feats or abilities would you recommend?(I'm now running a lot of monsters with Grab, and it LOOKS spiffy... I suppose that's in a party without precision damage, though.)
Keeping in mind that I consider the Grab ability counts as Improved Grapple for anything that requires Improved Grapple as a prereq then at least some of the following feats are needed.
Greater Grapple
Grabbing Style
Grabbing Master
Rapid GrapplerThere are several others but have to go.
Will do another mail later with the full list.
There about 4 other feats.
Basically it's about using Swift/Immediate, Move and Standard actions + constriction to do damage. And if possible remove the penalties for been in Grapple/Pin. Also to retain the ability to get AOOs
A couple of Class levels in Monk or Brawler is one way of handling it because those 2 Classes have the bonus Class abilities needed to make Grapple work.Otherwise the Monster Grapples.
The Grappled target makes a full attack.
The rest of his party makes a full attack against the monster's reduced AC and then the Monster gets to make a single attack vs the grappled creature...assuming it's still alive.
And off course the Monster gets no AOOs because it has the grappled condition.
Since we are in the rules forum, a quick clarification: The Grab ability does not count as Improved Unarmed Strike for feat pre-reqs. Although GMs are free to house rule as such.
Putting aside my personal distaste for grappling rules and the debatable situation where a character needs to be in diametral opposite side of the friendly character to give/gain the flank bonus (I've yet to see an example where a character inside enemy squares helps flanking or not, since the basic examples don't approach this kind of scenario), I think the ingame issue could've been avoided easily by the GM.
IIRC the grappler can end the grapple as a free action and he can choose an adyacent legal square to drop the enemy. "As your companion tries to reach the unguarded sides of the dragon, he is swiftly catched by its mighty eyes and suddenly you feel an abrupt movement and found yourself near him in the ground, now you both lie in front of him again".
I could be wrong though.
Oh and btw IMO you don't give/have the flank bonus while you are inside an enemy square.
There is no rules support for releasing a grappled creature and placing them in an adjacent square of your choice. You may be thinking of a previous edition of the rules.
In Pathfinder, when you successfully grapple someone they are brought next to you, but after that point you do not control their position without a rule or ability that states you do.
Additionally, being released from a grapple does not make you prone, something you seem to indicate in your 'story example'.
Apologies if I made my story confusing. I wasn't trying to say that he fall prone when I wrote that "he's released in the ground". English is not my native language so I have to think a few times wich words suits better (grammar corrections will be kindly appreciated).
On the other hand, you might be rigth. Pherhaps I'm just messing rules inside my head. I think its a mix of old 3.5 and Pathfinder rules, because I remember that when a monster usses a successful grab special attack then the target was moved inside any of the enemy squares (thus disallowing flank), but now seems to work different.
On further searching:
'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 my story is wrong, because (unless I'm missing something again) the order of actions should be:
- The dragon attacks him and hit.
- Starts a free grapple check and succeeds.
- The dragon can freely put him in any adjacent square and both gain the grappled condition.
- The dragon can, as a free action, decide when to drop (release) him on that same square and be freed from the grappled condition.
And by that rules Mr. Rogue can go around the dragon and make a flanked sneak attack. Should be this correct?
Apologies if I made my story confusing. I wasn't trying to say that he fall prone when I wrote that "he's released in the ground". English is not my native language so I have to think a few times wich words suits better (grammar corrections will be kindly appreciated).On the other hand, you might be rigth. Pherhaps I'm just messing rules inside my head. I think its a mix of old 3.5 and Pathfinder rules, because I remember that when a monster usses a successful grab special attack then the target was moved inside any of the enemy squares (thus disallowing flank), but now seems to work different.
On further searching:
'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 my story is wrong, because (unless I'm missing something again) the order of actions should be:
- The dragon attacks him and hit.
- Starts a free grapple check and succeeds.
- The dragon can freely put him in any adjacent square and both gain the grappled condition.
- The dragon can, as a free action, decide when to drop (release) him on that same square and be freed from the grappled condition.And by that rules Mr. Rogue can go around the dragon and make a flanked sneak attack. Should be this correct?
Your new sequence is correct.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the fact that you need to be able to make an attack into the square to threaten it. Note that you do not need to be able to make an attack of opportunity to threaten.
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.
Notice that it specifies that you don't threaten and therefore cannot make an attack of opportunity. There is no language that states not being able to make AoOs means you no longer threaten.
|
If you are going to say this is conclusive evidence then I'd prefer it if someone can source the rules that the quote comes from, especially since the original post seems to have vanished.
He's quoting the Melee Tactics Toolbox softcover. Here is proof if you need it.
|
|
From the fact that you need to be able to make an attack into the square to threaten it. Note that you do not need to be able to make an attack of opportunity to threaten.
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.Notice that it specifies that you don't threaten and therefore cannot make an attack of opportunity. There is no language that states not being able to make AoOs means you no longer threaten.
Unless I am wrong, you read that line as "you threaten all squares in wick you could potentially make a melee attack during any part of the round, regardless of your actual capability to do that at this time".
Reading it that way you threaten even if unarmed without IUS, using the total defense action, grappled, flatfooted and so on.
I read it as "you threaten all squares in wick you could potentially make a melee attack at the time in wick you make the check, if you had attacks available, so you are limited to the weapons you have ready, by being flat footed, by using total defense and so on.
|
|
If you are going to say this is conclusive evidence then I'd prefer it if someone can source the rules that the quote comes from, especially since the original post seems to have vanished.He's quoting the Melee Tactics Toolbox softcover. Here is proof if you need it.
It is a section of that book with generic guidelines written in a conversational tone. I would be very careful about calling it "a rule".
To cite a few section of the same part of the book:
"Ranks in Acrobatics allow you to avoid attacks of opportunity when you’re moving and increase your Armor Class bonuses from fighting defensively or using total defense."
So now we only need to have ranks in acrobatics to avoid AoO?
"A shield can also allow you to flexibly switch between offensive and defensive options by doubling as an off-hand weapon with feats such as Bashing Finish, Improved Shield Bash, Shield Master, and Shield Slam"
You now need those feats to use a shield offensively?