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
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.
|2 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.
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.
It's worth pointing out that this delay of needing to maintain the grapple is relevant if you're trying to attack the creature otherwise. For example, a ruffian rogue might stride (move), grapple (attack), and then strike (attack, -5) hoping for sneak attack. On the next round, assuming the creature hasn't broken out, the rogue could strike (attack) for sneak attack twice (0,-5), and then try to maintain the grapple (attack, -10).
This might make sense if the rogue thought he could kill the creature with a single attack, freeing up remaining actions to do things like move to another target. But if the rogue wasn't sure if he could kill the creature, he might be better off maintaining the grapple first, and then striking twice.