|
Say I grapple successfully. According to text I have it restrained until at least "the end of my next turn." Then what is the purpose of "You can also Grapple to keep your hold on a creature you already grabbed?" I shouldn't need to take the Grapple action for this effect, since the duration is already the end of my next turn.
Can someone please explain? This seems contradictory. Do you need to reestablish the grapple each time on your turn (as in 1E)? "to keep your hold"; if so, why does a success have a duration "until the end of your next turn"?
Grapple Single Action
Attack
Source Core Rulebook pg. 242
Requirements You have at least one free hand. Your target cannot be more than one size larger than you.You attempt to grab an opponent with your free hand. Attempt an Athletics check against their Fortitude DC. *You can also Grapple to keep your hold on a creature you already grabbed.*
Critical Success Your opponent is restrained *until the end of your next turn* unless you move or your opponent Escapes (page 470).
Success Your opponent is grabbed *until the end of your next turn* unless you move or your opponent Escapes.
Failure You fail to grab your opponent. If you already had the opponent grabbed or restrained using a Grapple, those conditions on that creature end.
Critical Failure If you already had the opponent grabbed or restrained, it breaks free. Your target can either grab you, as if it succeeded at using the Grapple action against you, or force you to fall and land prone.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, you Grapple on Turn #1. They will stay grabbed until the end of Turn #2.
So what can you do during Turn #2? Per the rules, you can Grapple again (which extends the Grapple until the end of Turn #3). If the rule you cite wasn't there, you'd just be stuck having to let them go at the end of Turn #2, not allowing you to grab them until Turn #3 and giving them a full turn to run free.
It would make actually maintaining a grapple impossible.
|
|
That explains things better. Thanks!
But it is redundant, and either unnecessary to state it, since that action is always available and not a special advantage;
or it they bother, they should mention it is "extending the grapple into the next round," otherwise it implies you need to do something on your turn to keep the grapple going through your turn (a holdover from 1E).
I expect confusion from most players over this.
"Extending the grapple into the next round." is just another way to phrase "Grappled until the end of your next turn.". I think the grapple is stated this way because of the way they are trying to format things into clear durations and conditions maybe?
Is anybody actually surprised or confused that the rules often redundantly state things?
That is just so hugely common, and most people find it helpful by being reminded of context/meaning,
rather than absolutely depending on perfectly applying formally stated rules which might not occur to them without prompting.
In cases where RAW might be non-functional critical analysis of intent can take into account what would be superfluous or congruency with direct statement of potential function, but merely being redundant or superlfuous in and of itself doesn't impact how rules work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it might also be a bit better now since the index at the end of the books also gives really clear and short summaries of every keyword and not only page it's on.
I think it's to ensure distinction based on classes, prioritizing high Fort classes like Barb/Fighter/Pal/Ranger or Monk/Warpriest (that Alchemist gets lumped in probably isn't particularly desired), also avoiding single value optimization (on Athletics). Otherwise, a STR Rogue could easily clean up just on skill proficiency or Reflex save if that was chosen. And also for simplicities' sake they didn't want to different DCs for initial Grab vs Sustain/Restrained etc, so they chose based on which classes they wanted to be best Grapplers all around.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it a fortitude dc for grapple instead of a reflex dc which makes more sense as you are triying to grab someone which has more to to with movement than how hardy you are?
I'm coming from 5th ed. Why isn't a roll against an Athletics or Acrobatics DC?
I feel like the stat chosen for this DC is probably very flexible depending on the DM. It could be that they rolled a die during the meeting to determine which stat was used. I feel a DM could change it from Fortitude, to Reflex, Athletics, or Acrobatics and not mess with the balance of the game. Such a change may also help reinforce some key characteristics of a monster.
It's because a character doesn't get +level to a skill if the skill is untrained. A level 18 character with 10 strength has a +0 to athletics if they're untrained in it, which would be a DC of 10.
No matter what, you're going to be at least trained in a save, so even with a +0 from your stat, you'd still get a minimum of +20 at level 18 (for a DC of 30). That's probably a low estimate, since most characters (if not all) will have their worst save be expert by that point, and others will be master or legendary.
Because people wanted to have untrained mean they were actually really bad at something, it meant that the rules could not use skills as defenses for combat actions. This choice was made due to feedback gathered during the playtest, which worked differently.