| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maaaaaybe read the item you're asking about's description?
I'm just telling you what it says.
You are not telling me what it says. You are either through blatant rules lawyering or carelessness omitting a word that changes the meaning of the sentence.
Since you missed it the item description, in the post you responded to, and the opening post of this thread, here it is again
It uses the same term: Grapple . Which isn't a thing. If they meant grapple CHECK they could have said check.
Grapples are a Standard Attack actions. Your CMB is listed under Attack stats. Your CMD is listed under Defense stats. ALL combat maneuvers are considered a type of attack, INCLUDING Grapple, which uses a Standard Action. The roll for ANY CM is considered an ATTACK ROLL.
"When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus."
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat/So, let's try this again. READ. A grapple is an attack. It uses an attack ROLL.
Grapples are not an Attack Action. If they were, I could Vital Strike with them when I maintain for damage, for example. But I can't. They're the "Perform a Combat Maneuver" action, which varies based on what type of maneuver you're doing. Big difference there. Even so, Grapples are only Standard Actions (not Attack Actions) by their specific definition, or Move Actions via Greater Grapple, so there's no way they'd benefit from Vital Strike.
Both CMB and CMD is listed under general statistics. Not under the Offense section unless they possess special abilities (such as Grab or Trip for free, which are specific to those options). Incidentally, BAB, which is used for attacks as a whole, is also listed there.
Just because I make an attack roll doesn't mean I am attacking. Maybe I'm using Aid Another, which also uses an Attack Roll, and isn't actually an attack? The notion that an attack roll = attack, while easy to conclude, has no basis within the rules, and there are situations where that isn't the case. Aid Another and Combat Maneuvers would fall under this paradigm.
A grapple uses a standard action, and it is an attack, but it is not an attack action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, this question is on the RULES forum. Literally, the placement of the question requires rules laywering.
No. It does not. That is merely one paradigm of rules interpretation, the paradigm least often born out when the FAQhammer comes down.
So, let's try this again. READ
I believe I'm done reading anything you write. Goodbye.
I mean, by the MOST literal reading, you do the spikes extra damage when you do a grapple attack. Grapple attack isn't an option in the game so the spikes do absolutely nothing but make you look cool. (to middle schoolers...:) )
.. and this is the problem with using the most literal meaning. It is the LEAST consistent way to get an answer as it plinkos left and right without direction.
While there isn't a literal term 'grapple attack', grappling is an attack. The worse case scenario is that by RAW you actually deal damage on every successful grapple check (yikes), rather than the obvious intent that you use the armor spikes to damage an opponent. I would check to see if armor spikes changed description in the transition between 3.5 and Pathfinder and check this for grappling as well. If the only change was to the Grapple rule, then that should take precedence since the other must be grandfathered rules that are now outdated.
By Raw I can reach the apparent intent that a "grapple attack" is the damage with a grapple option.
Under Grappling
Damage: You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal.
Who watches the wa.... i mean. "What is a grapple attack? That thing."
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are two grammatically correct ways to read grapple attack your reading as a single compound noun "grapple attack" or verb noun compound noun. This is the actual gramatic crux of the debate. Grapple attack written as grappling attack or attack that grapples (verb noun) would have been clears.
My guildlines for interpretation tend to be paizo does not publish with the intent of a rule doing nothing. A simple low bar. For a high bar they have said that they never intended to publish anything to create infinite resources or loops. Throwing shield, nature oracle etc. I see these as clear simple mostly agreeable concepts between rational folks.
Then I look for what is closest to what is written. Using game terminology I can make a ruling without changing the wording of the sentence if I treat the writing as the verb noun compound noun.
The alternate involves assuming a undefined term in the game, noun/noun and then ruling it does not have a mean. Which is tautology.
All of that said if we get a ruling on this I'm 95% confident it will be one of the two more conservative rulings. The problem with using paizo's propensity for limiting power as a justification for reading conservatively is that one can not separate paizo's want to limit power and their original intent.
For example lore warden, and the jingasa, were written fine there original intent was clear but they both got nerfed because of reasons (I assume they were felt to be outside the power curve, but I can't be sure). For this reason it is impossible to determine if a down grade in power is a result of original intent or seazing an opportunity to check power.
On the other hand when, like with improved familairs, when a ruling goes in the direction of a less strict reading, it is easier to assume intent because fewer ruling go this way so these data have far less noise.
I'm neither anti-errata, nor do I think that mine is the only way to read rules. But what I have done is created a process for myself that I hope is internally consistent to create fair and dependable rulings so my players do not feeling like I'm ruling against them irrationality.
The reasoning boils down to this: which ruling has me violating the fewest standing rules and does not invalidate publish rules.
I assume and am not attempting to sway anybody but maybe the though process will be beificial.
Disagree. An attack has multiple implications, and the Invisibility spell (as well as the Spell rules in general) is an example of how some things are classified as an attack, but don't follow the traditional definition. Same concept here: You can't say that a Combat Maneuver is the same as the traditional definition of attacking, which is to make a roll using BAB and Strength (and other relevant modifiers) to target an enemy's AC to inflict HP damage with a weapon, which is presumably what you're assuming is happening in relation with a "grapple attack."
My argument wasn't that it's wrong because it's unique, it's that there are numerous terms used incorrectly in the game, and in a lot of those cases they are merely typing errors. Courageous Property is a prime example of something that granted a unique benefit (morale bonuses increased by half weapon enhancement) that wasn't wrong, but wasn't what was intended, and therefore had to get its wording changed to reflect the intended function. I imagine if a FAQ is released, this will get that very same treatment.
Sure it can. Problem is, you have nothing in the game that functions as a "grapple attack" for the Armor Spikes to key off of, which means you're left with a useless function (which, incidentally, is what Option 1 basically does). The closest you can get to meeting that definition is either the maintaining of a grapple (which has the word "attack" in the Damage entry), or with the Grab special ability (which still has the disconnect, since Grab is an option you have to do, separate from the attack that grants you that opportunity). Neither of those things don't precisely label the "grapple attack" you'd need in order to trigger the Armor Spikes, and therefore a logical argument can be made for it to not work with those subjects, meaning you're still stuck with a definition that doesn't work.
They also could have did that with Shield Master in comparison to the table entry they wrote for it. Problem is that they didn't, and it led to an inconsistent ruling that let players, per RAW, ignore any conceivable penalty from any attack with a Shield. Which went on for over seven years. It's more logical that this is just a repeat of that incident here than it is a means for players to munchkin grapple damage, since it stands to reason that a lot of rules, both old and new, used inconsistent definitions amongst themselves in an attempt to diversify their wording. Nice for a novel to keep it interesting. Horrible for a rulebook to keep its consistency.
Invisibility has its own rules in regards to attacks that are separate from other rules in the game, and has nothing to do with how "Special Attacks" work in relation to the traditional definition of attacking. But to answer your question, yes, it would break invisibility. So would Aid Another, regardless of what is aided. So would using the Duelist's Parry ability, even if it's for an adjacent ally. Invisibility makes a lot of things that aren't ncessarily attacks in the usual sense (Fireball, for example) become attacks, even though they don't follow the same rules as simply swinging a greatsword at a baddie, which is the rules context that matters here.
Are teddy bears mammals?
An attack roll doesn't always conclude an attack. It's a good assumption, but not an absolution. Aid Another and Opportune Parry are just a couple examples of abilities where that is not the case.
"Grapple attack" is an undefined term. I see no reason why the rules would have said "grapple attack" if it had meant "grapple check". So I have to ask "what the heck is a [grapple attack]? ".
All combat maneuver rolls are attacks.
A grapple attack, in context, would be any grapple combat maneuver.
An attack roll doesn't always conclude an attack. It's a good assumption, but not an absolution. Aid Another and Opportune Parry are just a couple examples of abilities where that is not the case.
Are you going to argue that an invisible character can use combat maneuvers against an opponent without breaking invisibility?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you going to argue that an invisible character can use combat maneuvers against an opponent without breaking invisibility?
All bears are mammals
Teddy bears are bears.
Teddy bears are mammals.
The question is not if grappling is an attack according to invisibility (it is), but what the compound phrase "grapple attack" means. Words do not always break down into their component parts very easily.
I can see no discernible reason to say "grapple attack" in place of grapple, grapple check, or grapple combat maneuvers. I CAN see why you would use it in place of "a combat maneuver check to maintain the grapple and take the damage your opponent with armored spikes" option: an option which tells you how to use armored spikes.
@ Volkard Abendoth: I already answered this question.
Invisibility has its own rules in regards to attacks that are separate from other rules in the game, and has nothing to do with how "Special Attacks" work in relation to the traditional definition of attacking. But to answer your question, yes, it would break invisibility. So would Aid Another, regardless of what is aided. So would using the Duelist's Parry ability, even if it's for an adjacent ally. Invisibility makes a lot of things that aren't necessarily attacks in the usual sense (Fireball, for example) become attacks, even though they don't follow the same rules as simply swinging a greatsword at a baddie, which is the rules context that matters here.
You forgot Sunder, Trip, and Disarm attacks too, but let's be realistic here, they all fall under Combat Maneuvers.
Are you going to argue that an invisible character can use combat maneuvers against an opponent without breaking invisibility?All bears are mammals
Teddy bears are bears.
Teddy bears are mammals.
The question is not if grappling is an attack according to invisibility (it is), but what the compound phrase "grapple attack" means. Words do not always break down into their component parts very easily.
I can see no discernible reason to say "grapple attack" in place of grapple, grapple check, or grapple combat maneuvers. I CAN see why you would use it in place of "a combat maneuver check to maintain the grapple and take the damage your opponent with armored spikes" option: an option which tells you how to use armored spikes.
And some people are incapable of understanding context, being either myopic or obtuse. Even when provided the source for the existing definitions.
The rest of us are able to figure out what new words, and combinations of words, mean by observing the context in which they are used and comparing that context to existing definitions.
Unfortunately for the more myopic and/or obtuse members of the community:
English is a very fluid language.
In some ways that is helpful because it allows us to express a rule in a natural way in one sentence and in another natural way in another sentence. For example, we can say "if the creature fails its save, it gains the blinded condition," or "this spell blinds the target if it fails its save." Even though "blinds" isn't a condition, you know what that second statement means because you understand that "blindness" and "blind" mean the same thing in the real world and you know that "blindness" and "blind" aren't two different game terms.
@ Volkard Abendoth: I already answered this question.
Invisibility has its own rules in regards to attacks that are separate from other rules in the game, and has nothing to do with how "Special Attacks" work in relation to the traditional definition of attacking. But to answer your question, yes, it would break invisibility. So would Aid Another, regardless of what is aided. So would using the Duelist's Parry ability, even if it's for an adjacent ally. Invisibility makes a lot of things that aren't necessarily attacks in the usual sense (Fireball, for example) become attacks, even though they don't follow the same rules as simply swinging a greatsword at a baddie, which is the rules context that matters here.
No, you have inconsistent standards, changing the definitions and rules applied on a case-by-case basis to suit how you believe each discrete interaction should function.
Either an action is an attack or it is not. If a specific action is an attack, it is an attack for all rules interactions with that action.
You take the good with the bad.
|
I can see no discernible reason to say "grapple attack" in place of grapple, grapple check, or grapple combat maneuvers. I CAN see why you would use it in place of "a combat maneuver check to maintain the grapple and take the damage your opponent with armored spikes" option: an option which tells you how to use armored spikes.You've been given a reason on this thread. There are 2 kinds of attacks pertaining to Armor Spikes: Weapon Attacks and Grapple Attacks.
You can make regular attacks with Armor Spikes, and as such they are Light Martial Weapons that do 1d6 Piercing.
And on a Grapple Attack, as opposed to a a just plain Attack, they do extra Piercing Damage.
Now you have a reason, not that any reason was necessary.
Well, now this explanation makes it sound like they do 1d6 on a normal attack or 2d6 when used to deal damage in a grapple. Meaning they deal 1d6 damage normally, or 2d6 damage in a grapple (EDIT 1d6 + 1d6 extra). Which I guess would be option 5? 6? I know that's not what you were trying to say, but that's how the explanation you gave reads to me.
Too bad "attack" isn't as synonymous of a definition as "blind" is, so the analogy doesn't match up to the hang up that's in this thread.
Even so, there's a lot more to attacks than there are to static conditions, so you can't take a static answer and expect it to blanket content that is displayed in more than one type of context without covering each and every version of that context.
Well, now this explanation makes it sound like they do 1d6 on a normal attack or 2d6 when used to deal damage in a grapple. Meaning they deal 1d6 damage normally, or 2d6 damage in a grapple. Which I guess would be option 5? 6? I know that's not what you were trying to say, but that's how the explanation you gave reads to me.I can see no discernible reason to say "grapple attack" in place of grapple, grapple check, or grapple combat maneuvers. I CAN see why you would use it in place of "a combat maneuver check to maintain the grapple and take the damage your opponent with armored spikes" option: an option which tells you how to use armored spikes.You've been given a reason on this thread. There are 2 kinds of attacks pertaining to Armor Spikes: Weapon Attacks and Grapple Attacks.
You can make regular attacks with Armor Spikes, and as such they are Light Martial Weapons that do 1d6 Piercing.
And on a Grapple Attack, as opposed to a a just plain Attack, they do extra Piercing Damage.
Now you have a reason, not that any reason was necessary.
All combat maneuvers are made with a weapon.
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
Emphasis mine.
Even combat maneuvers made while unarmed are still considered attack rolls made with weapons.
For example, unarmed strikes, claws, and slams are light melee weapons associated with a hand
The Spell Combat FAQ is an example of this. It set a new, very different, definition for what is considered attacking with a weapon.
Too bad "attack" isn't as synonymous of a definition as "blind" is, so the analogy doesn't match up to the hang up that's in this thread.
Even so, there's a lot more to attacks than there are to static conditions, so you can't take a static answer and expect it to blanket content that is displayed in more than one type of context without covering each and every version of that context.
In context, yes it is.
Combat maneuvers are explicitly attack rolls made with weapons. This sets the context, clarifies usage as a verb (the undertaking of an attack action, and allows us to refer to a standard dictionary for a meaning applicable to the determined context.
This narrows the number of applicable definitions down to 1
take aggressive action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force, typically in a battle or war.
Grapple is, of course, a well defined term within the Pathfinder rules.
No, you have inconsistent standards, changing the definitions and rules applied on a case-by-case basis to suit how you believe each discrete interaction should function.
Either an action is an attack or it is not. If a specific action is an attack, it is an attack for all rules interactions with that action.
You take the good with the bad.
How is that inconsistent? Fireballs aren't attacks, they're spells. But for the purposes of Invisibility, they are an attack. Same goes for Aid Another and Parry; they don't target an enemy's AC to deal hit point damage with a weapon, but because it's a hostile effect involving an enemy, it breaks Invisibility.
Invisibility is what's changing the standards, not me, and those standards only apply for the purposes of determining if Invisibility is still active. It otherwise defaults to the normal rules.
I expect you to make attack rolls against an enemy's A.C. with your fireballs from now on if that's what you're going to argue.
|
|
Volkard - I quoted the FAQ in the other grapple thread in response to one of your messages. Only disarm, sunder, and trip are explicitly made with a weapon, unless the specific weapon or another ability changes that. Even Weapon Focus requires you to take Unarmed Strike and Grapple as separate things. I’m on my phone, so can’t easily copy the FAQ again here. It’s the one for the core rulebook asking about what maneuvers you can apply weapon finesse to. It very directly says only those three maneuvers are performed with a weapon.
EDIT: Back at my computer. Here is the FAQ again.
Weapon Finesse: If I have this feat, can I apply my Dex bonus to my combat maneuver checks instead of my Strength bonus?
It depends on what combat maneuver you're attempting. Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses apply to the roll. Therefore, if you're attempting a disarm, sunder, or trip maneuver, you can apply your Dex bonus instead of your Str mod on the combat maneuver check (assuming you're using a finessable weapon, of course). For other combat maneuvers, you use the normal rule for determining CMB (Str instead of Dex).The Agile Maneuvers feat applies to all combat maneuvers, not just disarm, sunder, and trip, so it is still a useful option for a Dex-based creature that uses combat maneuvers.
And Weapon Focus again:
Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat.
And some people are incapable of understanding context, being either myopic or obtuse. Even when provided the source for the existing definitions.
I agree with this but disagree about who it applies to.
You have provided a definition of bear.
I am asking for a definition of "teddy bear"
Using your logic, a "teddy bear" is in fact a mammal.
The rest of us are able to figure out what new words, and combinations of words, mean by observing the context in which they are used and comparing that context to existing definitions.
You seem to be not doing that. You are trying to use the word "Attack" as if it had one standard definition throughout the entire game, and it clearly does not. You cannot vital strike or smite evil with a fireball, even though fireballing the ogre tribe is an attack by the definition of invisibility.
The quote you posted from SKR seems to be warning you against this. So I'm not sure if i misunderstood your position or what here.
Targeting a flat 10 AC is not targeting the enemy's AC, which may be higher or lower than that number (higher more often than not), so that's wrong. And granting an ally a +2 to A.C. or to hit on their (or against their enemies') next attack isn't an attack against an enemy to deal hit point damage via a weapon, so that's not the same definition either.
Keep trying.
Is someone arguing that a grapple is not an attack or is the argument that a grapple is not am "attack action"?
Alright, since someone IS, in fact, trying to use the argument I predicted, AN ATTACK ROLL MEANS IT IS AN ATTACK. If you are making an ATTACK roll, you're ATTACKING. <type> roll means that you are making a roll of that <type>. You are making a roll for an attack vs CMD, as vs AC or touch AC or flatfoot AC.
A teddy bear is not a mammal. It is not a bear. It's not even really a facsimile of a BABY bear. It's the stylized idea of a baby bear, and it's a toy. And, unlike a set of rules, it was a marketing ploy to sell something. Unless it violates a law, marketing will do stupid crap like mark water as "Gluten free."
My roommate points points out that saying that a teddy bear looks like a bear, is like saying that My Little Pony is an accurate representation of horses.
So, no, your argument holds no water. Your argument is a sieve, and we're trying to bring in drinking water. Knock it off.
Just because it's a logical leap doesn't mean it's a rule. If that's the case, I should be able to drink a potion and move as part of the same action, since I can draw a weapon ready to attack with it as part of the same action to move, as well as drink and move in real life. But I can't do that because [mechanics].
There are effects which are attacks which don't require rolls (such as Fireball), and there are effects which require attack rolls but aren't exactly attacks made against enemies (such as Opportune Parry). Just because they are an attack in the general sense (even Opportune Parry skirts that definition) doesn't make them an attack in the traditional sense.
Also, the "Teddy Bear" is irrelevant by this point in time, since the real crux is trying to prove that the Grapple "Attack" is the same as the traditional definition of "Attack," which is made with a weapon (which Grapple doesn't typically use) against one form of AC (which CMD doesn't fall under) to deal hit point damage (which is debatable at best, as well as optional in normal circumstances).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You aren't missing too much by participating. The arguments have been laid out, and the only thing that will be productive here is a FAQ.