Darksol the Painbringer wrote: Linkified
Thanks for that post, as that's another (official) big point towards "Grapples aren't attacks" in the specific sense, since the PDT account states Combat Maneuvers don't benefit from bonuses made with unarmed strikes or natural weapons that may be limbs used to grapple.
Again, this isn't me saying that combat maneuvers aren't attacks in the general sense, just that things which work for attacks won't (usually) work for combat maneuvers, and vice-versa.
This FAQ has nothing to do with Armor Spikes.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
No, but it has to do with Grapple, which Armor Spikes affect, and is the center point that's been discussed in relation to Armor Spikes (since most everything else we know about it is clear).
The post states that you can't use an Amulet of Mighty Fists, which improves attack and damage rolls with unarmed strikes and natural attacks, to apply to your ability to grapple an opponent. This proves that you don't use Unarmed Strikes, Natural Attacks, or other weapons to grapple an opponent, and it also proves that the PDT differentiates attacks and combat maneuvers to the point that certain effects don't necessarily improve combat maneuvers, even if they would improve attacks.
The factor that the PDT acknowledges this difference to garner such a response should be proof enough that there are multiple ways of "attack" (and thereby multiple definitions of the term), and that you can't completely gauge what "attack" means in certain instances without appropriate context, which the Armor Spikes entry lacks due to inconsistent wording.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: The post states that you can't use an Amulet of Mighty Fists, which improves attack and damage rolls with unarmed strikes and natural attacks, to apply to your ability to grapple an opponent. No, it doesn't. It says that unarmed and natural attacks are normally incidental to the Grapple Combat Maneuver and so the Grapple Combat Maneuver will normally not benefit from enhancement bonuses of the Amulet of Mighty Fists, which only enhances natural and unarmed attacks.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: PDT differentiates attacks and combat maneuvers to the point that certain effects don't necessarily improve combat maneuvers, even if they would improve attacks. It's only saying that that Combat Maneuvers aren't Unarmed Attacks, and it is saying that Combat Maneuvers aren't Natural Attacks. It's not saying that Combat Maneuvers aren't attacks at all. I don't think you can make this post about the Amulet of Mighty Fists reach beyond the Amulet of Mighty Fists; perhaps you can say that in the description of the AoMF, "unarmed attacks" = "Unarmed Strikes."
And even though there are certain effect that don't affect the Grapple Combat Maneuver, that doesn't mean that the one in question doesn't.
Armor Spikes still say they do extra damage on a successful grapple attack.
Grappling is still an attack: still listed as a Special Attack, and therefore an attack, the thing you do to make a Combat Maneuver Check is still an Attack Roll. You can take Weapon Focus Grapple. Grappling Breaks Invisibility.
If the thing is a grapple, and it is an attack, then it fits both criteria for Armor Spikes, and every time you make a Grapple Combat Maneuver, you are making an attack.
The post says:
Pathfinder Design Team wrote: The answer is no. An amulet of might fists "grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons." You make a combat maneuver to grapple. Nothing in that post says anything about Unarmed Strikes or Natural Attacks being incidental to grappling an enemy. They simply outright say that effects which improve natural attacks and unarmed strikes (which you're claiming are incidental to grappling) won't apply to grappling, because it's a combat maneuver, even though it involves an attack roll.
This tells us that they treat combat maneuvers different from, at the very least, certain attack subsets (unarmed and natural attacks), even if they are used as a limb to carry out the maneuver, which means that effects which improve attacks don't necessarily improve combat maneuvers.
This could also tell us that a "grapple attack" is an attack subset (since it has a similar format to unarmed or natural attacks), which means that only effects which are stated to improve "grapple attacks" will apply in relation to armor spikes. But that's jumping too far to conclusions, and is really just overspeculation...
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: Nothing in that post says anything about Unarmed Strikes or Natural Attacks being incidental to grappling an enemy. No, not in that post. This is where I got that from.
Paizoblog wrote: Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon (natural weapons and unarmed strikes are considered weapons for this purpose)... For other maneuvers, either you’re not using a weapon at all, or the weapon is incidental to making the maneuver and its bonuses shouldn’t make you better at attempting the maneuver. I didn't think it was necessary to link to it because this post was part of the debate on the thread you linked to, so I assumed you were familiar with it.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: They simply outright say that effects which improve natural attacks and unarmed strikes (which you're claiming are incidental to grappling) won't apply to grappling, because it's a combat maneuver, even though it involves an attack roll. But only because you don't normally use either natural or unarmed strikes to perform a Grapple Combat Maneuver, not because Combat Maneuvers aren't attacks.
Pathfinder Design Team wrote: The answer is no. An amulet of might fists "grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons." You make a combat maneuver to grapple. Darksol the Painbringer wrote: This tells us that they treat combat maneuvers different from, at the very least, certain attack subsets (unarmed and natural attacks), even if they are used as a limb to carry out the maneuver, which means that effects which improve attacks don't necessarily improve combat maneuvers. No. The only thing this official rules post did was redefine combat maneuvers so that they do not count as unarmed attacks for the purpose of the Amulet of Mighty Fists, and therefore asserting that the Paizo Blog post did indeed deny the AoMF Enhancement Bonus to the Grapple Check.
To suppose otherwise is to suppose that if you were a Monk wearing an Amulet of Mighty Fists, and you were attempting to karate chop your way through someone's shield, you couldn't apply the AoMF enhancement bonus to the Sunder Attempt. It would also say that if you tried to Trip someone with a +1 Halberd, you wouldn't get to add the +1 to your Check, and the Paizo Blog clearly says you can.
To use this PDT post to reach beyond the Amulet of Mighty Fists it was intended to cover is overreaching and demonstrably contradicts other Official Rules sources. I think doing so clearly goes against the rules as intended!
Furthermore, if you clearly were using a Natural Attack to perpetrate the Grapple, such as through the Free Action Grapple granted by the Grab Ability such as via an Alchemal Tentacle, you clearly would enjoy the Enhancement Bonus form the AoMF, since in such a case, the Natural Weapon is most definitely not "incidental to making the maneuver."
Again it really seems an overreach to attempt to apply this PDT Post to things other than the Amulet of Mighty Fists.
As an option under grappling specifically mentions the armor spikes, I think the case for that just got a lot stronger.
All the mighty fist entry says is that grapples do not typically use weapons. Same reason it does not apply to steal or dirty trick maneuvers.
Zarius wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Zarius wrote:
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 attack. 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. No, though river of ink will be spoiled on this argument.
If you are pinned, you may make no attacks. But you may still may a Combat Maneuver check to break free.
You may not make a grapple attack to reverse the grappke.
So you can make an attempt (specifically called combat maneuver Check) to free yourself,but cant make a grapple attack
to reverse.
20s are auto successes on Attacks. But they don't auto succeed on skull chrcks, or on getting you out of a pin.
Attack rolls are not the definition of attacks. Coup de gras is an attack, but doesn't make an attack roll.
You can aid another to help them with a save. You roll an attack die... but you presumably don't have to attack the pit in order to aid.. .
If you take something from someone and you are invisible, is that an attack? Would it break invisibility?
And yet if someone is unaware of you you can use a sleighte of hand check to take an item.
It's another attack but no attack roll.
"You cannot use this skill to take an object from another creature during combat if the creature is aware of your presence"
Meaning if they are unaware you can.
Perfect Tommy wrote: If you are pinned, you may make no attacks. But you may still may a Combat Maneuver check to break free. Again, false. Repeating it doesn't make it true!
Core Rulebook wrote: Combat... Special Attacks... Combat Maneuvers... Grapple Combat Maneuvers are listed in the Combat section in the Core Rulebook as a Special Attack. Special doesn't mean "not." Combat Maneuvers are attacks.
When you make a Combat Maneuver Check, you make an Attack Roll.
Core Rulebook, Combat Maneuvers wrote: When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll That is what the rules say!
Perfect Tommy wrote: If you are pinned... you may still may a Combat Maneuver check... to free yourself,but cant make a grapple attack
to reverse.
Maybe. I'm not so sure about that. I can see it either way. But that doesn't change the fact that you can still make a Combat Maneuver to free yourself. Combat Maneuvers are still listed as Attacks, and when you make one, you make an Attack Roll.
Perfect Tommy wrote: 20s are auto successes on Attacks. But they don't auto succeed Citation required.
Perfect Tommy wrote: If you take something from someone and you are invisible, is that an attack? Would it break invisibility? If you are taking something from someone with the Steal Combat Maneuver, then yes, you are making an Attack. You making a Combat Maneuver. Combat Maneuvers are Attacks.
If you are taking something from someone with Sleight of Hand, that is neither attack nor attack roll. That is a Skill Check. The description of Invisiblity is actually a little vague on that. Using the Sleight of Hand Skill is not generally considered an Attack to my knowledge, but
Invibility wrote: The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character’s perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. I can see how Invisibility can be interpreted that way. Picking someone's pocket is not generally considered an Attack: it's a Skill Check. But Invisibility seems to make a big deal about taking direct vs. indirect action against the victim. I'm thinking no. Sleight of Hand is a Skill, not an Attack. Making a Sleight of Hand Check is a Skill Check, not an Attack Roll. I'm thinking an Invisible Rogue can totally pick your pocket without breaking Invisibility.
Perfect Tommy wrote: It's another attack but no attack roll. Just because that there are attacks where you make no attack roll does not mean there are attack rolls where you make no attacks. And even if there were, the facts are that Combat Maneuvers are listed in the Core Rulebook as Special Attacks, making them Attacks. And the fact that you make an Attack Roll to make a Combat Maneuver Check is evidence that supports the fact that Combat Maneuvers are Attacks.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Core Rulebook wrote: Combat... Special Attacks... Combat Maneuvers... Grapple Combat Maneuvers are listed in the Combat section in the Core Rulebook as a Special Attack. Special doesn't mean "not." Combat Maneuvers are attacks.
When you make a Combat Maneuver Check, you make an Attack Roll.
Core Rulebook, Combat Maneuvers wrote: When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll That is what the rules say!
Not sure if this has been pointed out, but...as per Special Attacks
CombatPRD wrote: 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. To me, this is a label "Special Attacks", but under this label fall a whole bunch of things, some of which use attack rolls like Charge, others do not, like Feint, some use a new set of rules like Combat Manoeuvers. It specifies that these are "other than normal attacks" and that they can be made "as part of another action (such as an attack)", so, they are not attacks (otherwise, why would they be made as part of an attack if they are an attack?)
bhampton wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Core Rulebook wrote: Combat... Special Attacks... Combat Maneuvers... Grapple Combat Maneuvers are listed in the Combat section in the Core Rulebook as a Special Attack. Special doesn't mean "not." Combat Maneuvers are attacks.
When you make a Combat Maneuver Check, you make an Attack Roll.
Core Rulebook, Combat Maneuvers wrote: When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll That is what the rules say!
Not sure if this has been pointed out, but...as per Special Attacks
CombatPRD wrote: 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. To me, this is a label "Special Attacks", but under this label fall a whole bunch of things, some of which use attack rolls like Charge, others do not, like Feint, some use a new set of rules like Combat Manoeuvers. It specifies that these are "other than normal attacks" and that they can be made "as part of another action (such as an attack)", so, they are not attacks (otherwise, why would they be made as part of an attack if they are an attack?) Well, you found here that the Special Attack rules describe things "other than normal attacks."
Okay. A Special Attack is not a normal attack. Are you trying to say that when you Grapple with someone, you are not trying to attack them at all?
People on this thread have been trying to say that when you Grapple someone while wearing Spiked Armor, you do not in fact inflict any extra damage with your Armor Spikes, even though the rules state explicitly
Armor Spikes wrote: Armor spikes deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked armor” on Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. People are trying to argue that when you Grapple someone, you are not making an attack, insisting that "grapple attack" can only be interpreted as a single term with no explicit definition, and therefore seizing upon this an excuse to deny people the extra piercing damage the rules promise us.
Are you saying that if I went up to some Pathfinder-playing nerd in the Boys' Room, twisted his arm around his back and forced his head into the toilet bowl, giving him swirly after swirly, I could also be saying, "I'm not attacking you! I'm Grappling you, and Grappling is not an Attack!" Then the Principal, upon hearing my explanation would nod his head and say to the crying, little fat boy, "Technically, he's right: Grappling is not an attack. You weren't attacked." Sounds like nonsense to me. If you did that to me at a Con, I would tell the Police I was Attacked, and they would agree with me!
I agree with you that a Special Attack is not a normal attack, but that certainly does not mean that it's not an attack at all. Again, "Special" doesn't mean "not." You do make a grapple attack as a Standard Action usually and sometimes as a Move Action, Swift Action and sometimes even a Free Action, but not as an Attack Action, but that doesn't mean it's not an Attack. Combat Maneuver Checks do use special rules, but the rules specify that Combat Maneuver Checks are Attack Rolls. I actually think the rules make it abundantly clear that Grappling is attacking.
Way to misrepresent anargument.
No, we are not saying if you grapple someone you ate not making an attack.
I am saying that your argument that all things that have attack rolls, are attacks; it's a false equivalence.
And your wrong about sleight if hand against an attended object.. but if you seriously want to play that way, please ask your ref to pay attention to this thread, to the advantage of the next rogue with invis.
If your logic were so iron clad... explain again why an aomf does not apply to grapples?
Oh right. Cuz it's a combat maneuver check. Per faq
Just like the free attempts to free yourself, from pin.Not an attack, which you can't make. Just a check.
As for the proof that it isn't an attack because nat 20s are not an auto success. Read the rules for tying up. If the result of the tie exceeds CMB +20, the target can never escape.
You yourself have quoted the rule
Perfect Tommy wrote: No, we are not saying if you grapple someone you ate not making an attack. Really?
Perfect Tommy wrote: If you are pinned, you may make no attacks. But you may still may a Combat Maneuver check to break free. Here you are saying that if you are Pinned, you may not make any Attacks, but you can execute Combat Maneuvers.
That sure looks logically implicit that you are saying that you believe Combat Maneuvers are not Attacks. If you made that argument in error, I am willing to accept this as your retraction.
Perfect Tommy wrote: I am saying that your argument that all things that have attack rolls, are attacks; it's a false equivalence. I'm not really making that statement. I am saying that the fact that Combat Maneuver Checks are Attack Rolls is evidence in support of the fact that Combat Maneuvers are attacks. But since you yourself have acknowledged yet again that you believe Combat Maneuvers, including Grapple Checks, are attacks, our argument is academic.
So, I'm not really sure what point are you trying to make here.
I do wish you would stop editing posts and only address the parts of the argument you think are favorable and ignoring the rest.
I'm saying that your statement that all combat maneuvers are attacks, while true is a specious argument, because there the word attack has multiple meanings.
Attack1 = generic english meaning of attack.
Attack2 = a pathfinder term meaning to make an attack roll, and attempt to hit.
Attack3 = attack as defined by invis etc.
Attack4 = Attack as used with full attack.
Attack5 = Attack NOT on your turn, in rx to an enemy action.
In the pathfinder table where they say Special Attacks, they mean Special Attacks1.
When you make a sunder attempt, you make an attack2 roll, substituting a melee attack1 with an attempt to sunder a weapon.
When you make a grapple attack1 you take a standard action to make an attack1. You make an attack2 roll. etc.
Combat Maneuvers, while attacks1, are not attack2. For example, if you make a full attack4, you substitute one attack2 with a combat maneuver check. While this is an attack1, it is not attack2.
You are willfully trying to conflate the word attack to make arguments that the rules do not.
The rules use several different terms and are very careful to differentiate between them. Combat maneuver checks, and attacks. They do not mean the same thing; but you try to insist they do.
For example:
Alchemical Grease " you gain a +5 alchemical bonus on Escape Artist checks, on combat maneuver checks made to escape a grapple"
Combat maneuver, not attack.
Grease Spell " A creature wearing greased armor or clothing gains a +10 circumstance bonus on Escape Artist checks and combat maneuver checks made to escape a grapple,"
Pinned " A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check"
Combat maneuver check, not attack.
Notice the definition: "During combat, you can attempt to perform a number of maneuvers. Funny, they said maneuvers, not attacks.
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...
Maneuvers can be part of an attack, part of a full attack, part of an attack5 of opportunity.
Its funny. Maybe, justs maybe, they actually mean combat maneuvers when they say "combat maneuvers"
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
People on this thread have been trying to say that when you Grapple someone while wearing Spiked Armor, you do not in fact inflict any extra damage with your Armor Spikes, even though the rules state explicitly
Armor Spikes wrote: Armor spikes deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked armor” on Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. People are trying to argue that when you Grapple someone, you are not...
and therefore seizing upon this an excuse to deny people the extra piercing damage the rules promise us.
Rather poor form to argue your opponents are arguing in poor faith Scott.
Saying that your opponents disagree with you "as an excuse to deny people the extra damage the rules promise us" - really removes any claim of objectivity.
No - we disagree with you.
Trying to escape a grapple is not a grapple attack.
Maintaining a grapple is not a grapple attack.
We don't disagree with you in order to hurt poor Scotts grapple builds. We disagree because we find your interpretation ridiculous.
By the way.. any answer yet
Things you've ignored:
1. Why rolling a nat 20 to escape being tied up isn't necessarily a success, and rolling a 1 isn't necessarily a failure..
you know.. since you claim they are attacks
2. Why sleight of hand against an opponent is an attack1, but not an attack2.
among a lot of others.
Perfect Tommy wrote: Rather poor form to argue your opponents are arguing in poor faith Scott. Excuse me?
Perfect Tommy wrote: I do wish you would stop editing posts and only address the parts of the argument you think are favorable and ignoring the rest. Perfect Tommy wrote: Things you've ignored: Perfect Tommy wrote: You are willfully trying to conflate the word attack to make arguments that the rules do not. Rather poor form to argue your opponents are arguing in poor faith, Mr. Perfect!
Perfect Tommy wrote: I do wish you would stop editing posts and only address the parts of the argument you think are favorable and ignoring the rest. The constraints you wish to impose upon me and/or your other debating opponents are too severe. I cannot comply. It is just not feasible to quote your full posts in every response. I honestly not entirely clear about your thesis. A lot of things you are saying seem to be irrelevant to the thread. I will continue quoting your posts the way I have been as part of my good-faith effort to give cogent analysis and/or counterarguments to what you are saying insofar as I understand it and it appears to be relevant to the thread.
Perfect Tommy wrote: You are willfully trying to conflate the word attack to make arguments that the rules do not. No sir.
I am giving my best counsel in good faith according to what the rules say.
Perfect Tommy wrote that I wrote: People are trying to argue that when you Grapple someone, you are not...
and therefore seizing upon this an excuse to deny people the extra piercing damage the rules promise us.
Oh, Tommy!
I do wish you would stop editing posts and only address the parts of the argument you think are favorable and ignoring the rest!
Perfect Tommy wrote: The rules use several different terms and are very careful to differentiate between them. Combat maneuver checks, and attacks. They do not mean the same thing; but you try to insist they do. I agree with you that they are not the same. A Combat Maneuver is a kind of attack. Combat Maneuvers are not every kind of attack.
But to the question that is relevant to this thread. Armor Spikes inflict extra Piercing Damage on a successful grapple attack. Grappling only has to be 1 kind of attack to fit this rule. I have brought abundant evidence that a a Grapple Check is 1 kind of attack and therefore you get your Armor Spike Damage.
The fact that there are many kinds of attacks doesn't mean that Combat Maneuvers are not 1 kind of attack.
Now you've tried to make the point that using a Combat Maneuver Check to escape from a Pin is not an attack on the grounds that you are not allowed to take control of the Grapple, only escape.
To that:
Even if you are right that when you are Pinned, a successful Grapple Check will not allow you to take control of the Grapple, that doesn't mean the Check is not any kind of Attack.
Even if it is true that you have found an example of a Grapple that is not an Attack, that doesn't mean that all other instances of Grapple attempts are not attacks.
Perfect Tommy wrote: Things you've ignored:
1. Why rolling a nat 20 to escape being tied up isn't necessarily a success, and rolling a 1 isn't necessarily a failure..
you know.. since you claim they are attacks
I did not respond to it at the time because in a later post, you said--or seemed to say--you agreed with me that Combat Maneuvers are a kind of attack, and because of that, I felt that examining your evidence was academic.
I will examine your evidence at your request.
Perfect Tommy wrote: As for the proof that it isn't an attack because nat 20s are not an auto success. Read the rules for tying up. If the result of the tie exceeds CMB +20, the target can never escape. Tying up is called out specifically as a specific exception to the Natural 20-always-succeeds rule. The rules for the Tied Up Condition do not at all necessarily apply to anything else.
While your statement is true, it does not make the point that a Natural 20 is not "an auto success" for Combat Maneuvers, and as far as I can see, this is not evidence in support of just about anything to do with Grappling or Armor Spikes.
But it is evidence Scott that your free attempts to escape a pin are not attacks.
Sure, you can say they are exceptions to the rules on attacking.
Or you can say you calling these standard actions to escape "attacks" is wrong.
Making the attack to grapple is an attack. Making an attempt to break the grapple is just a grapple maneuver check imposed (allowed) by the grappled (pinned) condition.
I've shown before - not everything that involves an attack roll is an attack; not everything that is an attack involves an attack roll; and quoting that as a mantra is false doctrine.
Attack1 <> Attack2 <> Attack3 <>Attack4. Attempting to say that an attack of opportunity is the same as a grapple attack because they both involve an attack roll defeats the purpose of writing the rules.
Perfect Tommy wrote: But it is evidence Scott that your free attempts to escape a pin are not attacks. The fact that rolling a natural 20 to escape from being Tied Up does not automatically succeed is not at all proof that an attempt to escape a Pin is not an Attack.
This is a special exception called out, and it does not apply to the general rules.
No it isn't proof. It is one of many points that suggest you are wrong that we have gone around and around on.
For example: a pin is a more severe form of a grapple. 2/3 of the way toward tied up.
Going from the SRD: (from memory) when you are pinned you are bound.
When you are bound, you are helpless.
Grapple applies a -2 penalty to combat maneuvers. It prevents melee attacks (I'll use that term to avoid derailing the conversation). Yet you believe that while pinned (bound and helpless) you can make combat maneuvers freely.
It beggars imagination. But at this point, I wish we could just agree to summarize our positions and end discussion.
Perfect Tommy wrote: Making the attack to grapple is an attack. This is the fundamental thesis I've been arguing, and you are now saying you agree with it. That pretty much means our argument is over.
When you make a Grapple check to attack someone, you are making a Grapple Attack, so you get your Armor Spike Damage.
Perfect Tommy wrote: Making an attempt to break the grapple is just a grapple maneuver check imposed (allowed) by the grappled (pinned) condition. I can see the point of view behind the idea that making a Grapple Check just to escape a Grapple and not to inflict some bad effect on your opponent should not be considered an attack. I consider this a minor point that I don't feel especially invested in.
I do disagree with this point of view though. The reason why is that a Grapple Check made to take control of a Grapple, Initiate a Grapple or escape a Grapple all use the same set of rules and same game mechanic. They all fall under the heading "Special Attacks." Making these checks is still an Attack Roll.
Perfect Tommy wrote: I've shown before - not everything that involves an attack roll is an attack You've told me that a lot; I daresay you've told me loudly. But you haven't shown me that the rules tell us this.
It does, admittedly, sound funny to characterize a Grapple Check to escape being Tied Up as an Attack. What are you attacking, the ropes? I guess you are attacking the ropes. Making a Grapple Check to escape from being Tied Up also uses the Combat Maneuver game mechanic so is still a Special Attack.
And even if Grappling to escape the Tied Up condition can be shown to not be an Attack, that just means you found an exception to the rule that Grappling is an Attack not a general rule that Grappling is not any kind of Attack at all.
Perfect Tommy wrote: Attack1 <> Attack2 <> Attack3 <>Attack4. Attempting to say that an attack of opportunity is the same as a grapple attack because they both involve an attack roll defeats the purpose of writing the rules. But I'm not attempting to do that at all! I'm not trying to say that attacks of opportunity are the same as grapple attacks. I'm only trying to say that they are both attacks: 2 different kinds of attacks? definitely. To prove my point, though, I only need to demonstrate that a Grapple Check fits any official definition of Attack, that it is any kind of attack. The fact that there are other kinds that it does not fit is irrelevant.
Perfect Tommy wrote: Making the attack to grapple is an attack. This is really all I've been trying to say.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Perfect Tommy wrote: Making the attack to grapple is an attack. This is the fundamental thesis I've been arguing, and you are now saying you agree with it. That pretty much means our argument is over.
When you make a Grapple check to attack someone, you are making a Grapple Attack, so you get your Armor Spike Damage.
Perfect Tommy wrote: Making an attempt to break the grapple is just a grapple maneuver check imposed (allowed) by the grappled (pinned) condition. I can see the point of view behind the idea that making a Grapple Check just to escape a Grapple and not to inflict some bad effect on your opponent should not be considered an attack. I consider this a minor point that I don't feel especially invested in.
I do disagree with this point of view though. The reason why is that a Grapple Check made to take control of a Grapple, Initiate a Grapple or escape a Grapple all use the same set of rules and same game mechanic. They all fall under the heading "Special Attacks." Making these checks is still an Attack Roll.
Perfect Tommy wrote: I've shown before - not everything that involves an attack roll is an attack You've told me that a lot; I daresay you've told me loudly. But you haven't shown me that the rules tell us this. Gonna let that slide. I provided iirc three examples, with rules. The fact you disagreed with the rules didn't mean I didn't provide them. But people can go back into the thread if they're inclined.
Quote:
It does, admittedly, sound funny to characterize a Grapple Check to escape being Tied Up as an Attack. What are you attacking, the ropes? I guess you are attacking the ropes. Making a Grapple Check to escape from being Tied Up also uses the Combat Maneuver game mechanic so is still a Special Attack.
And even if Grappling to escape the Tied Up condition can be shown to not be an Attack, that just means you found an exception to the rule that Grappling is an Attack not a general rule that Grappling is not any kind of Attack at all.
Perfect Tommy wrote: Attack1 <> Attack2 <> Attack3 <>Attack4. Attempting to say that an attack of opportunity is the same as a grapple attack because they both involve an attack roll ... Erm. Well we are getting closer.
Most of *my* argument was with your characterization of the pinned condition, and what can be done from that.
Secondly, there are many grapple checks that are made during the execution of a grapple.
There is the one you make to initiate the grapple.
The one the opponent makes to attempt to break the grapple.
Your free attempts at the beginning of your round.
And then ones to progress the grappled to pinned and tied up.
When your opponent is making an attempt to break the grapple, it is not grapple attack that *you* are making so I disagreed with you about under what conditions some grapple damage occurs. So I certainly agree that *some* grapple checks are attacks. Just not that all are; or the utility in conflating the word attack.
Other points are made in thread, I'll leave it there. Last word is yours.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
