Luke Styer |
What happens when a mounted character is grabbed? A grabbed character is immobilized, but when the rider is grabbed but the horse isn’t, can the horse move without breaking the grab? If so, does the rider stay behind or can the horse simply carry him outside the reach of the creature that grabbed him?
HammerJack |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While grabbed, you gain the immobilized condition.
"Immobilized
You can’t use any action with the move trait. If you’re immobilized by something holding you in place and an external force would move you out of your space, the force must succeed at a check against either the DC of the effect holding you in place or the relevant defense (usually Fortitude DC) of the monster holding you in place."
So the mount needs to roll to pull the character away.
HammerJack |
Well, you've got the mount/dismount move action (which you can't take while grabbed). I don't see anything formally defining, for example, falling off a mount as a free action. So, while it could be reasonable to assume the mount could move out from under the rider if they're grabbed and not trying to stay in the saddle, it seems like that comes down to a case of table arbitration on the details (like whether they end up prone, take fall damage, etc, based on what is holding them and how).
K1 |
I agree that it's going to involve table variation.
However, I for example would allow the mount to move out from under the grabbed rider and have the rider fall prone.
In essence, the rider has been yanked off their mount.
This would be a check too.
The character could hold with the legs and then will be a 3x check.
To think that a mount could dismount a grabbed rider for free is not real.
HammerJack |
Claxon wrote:I agree that it's going to involve table variation.
However, I for example would allow the mount to move out from under the grabbed rider and have the rider fall prone.
In essence, the rider has been yanked off their mount.
This would be a check too.
The character could hold with the legs and then will be a 3x check.
To think that a mount could dismount a grabbed rider for free is not real.
I think maybe the two of you are talking about different things? I read Claxon's statement as a ruling assuming that the rider was trying to NOT stay in the saddle.
K1 |
He didn't quote, so I could as it couldn't.
I read this
However, I for example would allow the mount to move out from under the grabbed rider and have the rider fall prone.
If you assume that the raider wants to get prone, for unknown reasons, in adjunct to being grabbed, then the raider automatically fail his throw.
It is not that you have to allow the mount.
1) mounted character
2) mounted character get grabbed
3) mount attempts to move
4) if the mount move, it has to confront both the enemy dc and the raider dc, if the rider decides to stay on it.
5) if the raider decides to let the mount go, he forgo his roll and thr mount gets his automatic success.
6) once the mount is Gone, depends the weight of the raider, the mob strength and intentions, the grabbed character could be or either prone or suspended.
Claxon |
K1 wrote:I think maybe the two of you are talking about different things? I read Claxon's statement as a ruling assuming that the rider was trying to NOT stay in the saddle.Claxon wrote:I agree that it's going to involve table variation.
However, I for example would allow the mount to move out from under the grabbed rider and have the rider fall prone.
In essence, the rider has been yanked off their mount.
This would be a check too.
The character could hold with the legs and then will be a 3x check.
To think that a mount could dismount a grabbed rider for free is not real.
Yeah, I was assuming the rider wasn't trying to stay on the mount and instead commanded the mount to move, and they weren't trying to stay mounted. Maybe to have the mount flank or do something else.
@K1
It's not that the rider wants to go prone, but they may want their mount to not be stuck underneath them. And the creature that grabbed the rider may have too strong a hold on the rider to be freed. I'm not inclined to let the mount pull the rider free (on its own), ever. The rider would need to make a check to free itself as per normal grapple rules, potentially being aided by the horse as under Aid action.
However, I would let the rider command the mount to move out from under them (so the mount can get free to do things) and as a penalty the rider falls prone.
K1 |
I can see that the aid action works there, but I also see it as a possibility.
First of all I would consider the monster.
A halfling grabs a human on a horse?
The horse wouldn't give a crap about the halfling, and will continue to move, eventually with his mounted owner.
A human grabs a fire Giant on a huge elephant?
The human will be like a dude catching the bus at the last moment. Grabbing him, and then by getting carried away with it.
A orc grabs a human on his horse?
The horse would be free to try to escape the situation, which has 7 possible ending
1) the horse gets away ( whether you give him a dc or not ) without his rider.
2) the horse gets away with his rider ( check + aid )
3) the orc beats the human but not the horse. He is pulled in the horse direction. How long depends the horse str and the degree of success
4) the orc beats the horse but not the human. The human sets free and the horse doesn't move.
5) the orc beats both human and horse. Human doesn't set free and the horse doesn't move.
6) both orc and horse beat the human. The human is getting torn apart. It could suffer Normal dmg, or eventually we could consider his hardness and the hp of a specific part of his body.
7) the human beats the orc. See nr 2.
Claxon |
I can see that the aid action works there, but I also see it as a possibility.
First of all I would consider the monster.
A halfling grabs a human on a horse?
The horse wouldn't give a crap about the halfling, and will continue to move, eventually with his mounted owner.
A human grabs a fire Giant on a huge elephant?
The human will be like a dude catching the bus at the last moment. Grabbing him, and then by getting carried away with it.
A orc grabs a human on his horse?
The horse would be free to try to escape the situation, which has 7 possible ending1) the horse gets away ( whether you give him a dc or not ) without his rider.
2) the horse gets away with his rider ( check + aid )
3) the orc beats the human but not the horse. He is pulled in the horse direction. How long depends the horse str and the degree of success
4) the orc beats the horse but not the human. The human sets free and the horse doesn't move.
5) the orc beats both human and horse. Human doesn't set free and the horse doesn't move.
6) both orc and horse beat the human. The human is getting torn apart. It could suffer Normal dmg, or eventually we could consider his hardness and the hp of a specific part of his body.
7) the human beats the orc. See nr 2.
Disagree on the bolded. The rider is immobilized unless they beat the Fort DC of the grappler. The most the horse can do is the Aid action (IMO). The horse cannot pull the rider free, the horse could pull free of the rider though (the rider lets them go) and do other things.
Allowing the horse to pull the rider free isn't supported by the rules.
K1 |
So a companion or an normal trained aninal is not allowed to use the aid action? Sounds pretty forced.
Even a Normal "PULL" command would be ok in order to get help in order to break free.
To be honest is a pretty Basic maneuver.
Remember that grabbed is not paralyzed.
You have a 25% to lose actions with the manipulate trait, so you are even allowed to partially move.
Just to say that if you think that a verbal command is not enough, you could even slap the animal in order to let him running loose.
If the grabbing crearue is on the mount too, imagine a halfling grabbing a human, and the mount could move with 2 creatures on it, then ofc the aid action won't do a thing.
Claxon |
Grabbed specifies immobilized. That's why I'm saying the animal companion can't pull you free on its own.
And I didn't say a companion or trained animal isn't allowed to use the aid action, in fact that was my suggestion for the only way they're allowed to help their rider get free. I was saying they can't pull the rider free no matter what check they make. The best the animal companion could do in my mind is drag both the rider and grappler (still grabbing the rider) but that would mechanical be represented by the animal companion performing a shove maneuver against the grappler.
Claxon |
So why is it that an animal trying to pull the character couldn't fall under the heading of "an external force that would move you out of your space"?
I was just about to address this because I didn't specifically before, it does. But it still doesn't break the grapple. It just moves you both.
That's why I was talking about effectively doing the shove maneuver.
Think of it like this. I have a little dog (10 lbs) who loves his chew toys.
I can grab that chew toy and pull, do you know what happens? The dog comes with it. I can lift them both off the ground, the dog is hanging from the chew toy. The only way I can separate them is to pry it out of his mouth or the dog chooses to let go.
In this scenario, I think anything without arms/hands probably lacks the ability to try to separate a grabber from the grabbed.
Luke Styer |
HammerJack wrote:So why is it that an animal trying to pull the character couldn't fall under the heading of "an external force that would move you out of your space"?I was just about to address this because I didn't specifically before, it does. But it still doesn't break the grapple. It just moves you both.
If an outside force moves the grabbed character out of the reach of the grabbing creature, then, it’s your position that the outside force drags the grabbing creature along with it?
Claxon |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Claxon wrote:If an outside force moves the grabbed character out of the reach of the grabbing creature, then, it’s your position that the outside force drags the grabbing creature along with it?HammerJack wrote:So why is it that an animal trying to pull the character couldn't fall under the heading of "an external force that would move you out of your space"?I was just about to address this because I didn't specifically before, it does. But it still doesn't break the grapple. It just moves you both.
Well, the creature attempting to move the grabbed character in this scenario would be performing a shove maneuver against the grabber. In which case both characters would be moved IMO.
Ask of right now, there are no rules to for another character separate a grabbed character from the grabber. Well I guess if you can restrain a character (critical success on a grapple) that would automatically cause them to be unable to make the athletics check against their target.
So if you can beat the fortitude DC of the monster by 10 I would let you separate them, mechanically it would be like grappling them (restraining) and letting go.
Luke Styer |
Well, the creature attempting to move the grabbed character in this scenario would be performing a shove maneuver against the grabber. In which case both characters would be moved IMO.
I don’t think it is a Shove maneuver, though. Not only is the shove maneuver not referenced in connection to an outside force, the rules don’t quite match up.
Claxon |
That's true, it wouldn't technically be a shove but that's the closest thing.
When the horse tries act on the grabber and the grabbed there can be only two potential outcomes in my mind:
1) The horse moves and separates the grabber and grabbed. This in my opinion is an unacceptable outcome, it makes getting out of the grapple too easy. Grapple is already much weaker than it used to be unless you get a critical success. Making it easy to get away like this just isn't acceptable in my opinion. Of note, if the horse can critically succeed at a grapple the former grabber is unable to continue taking actions to grapple the other person (due to the restrained trait) so the formerly grabbed person would be freed.
2) If the horse moving doesn't separate the grabber from the grabbed, then via the immobilized trait:
You can’t use any action with the move trait. If you’re immobilized by something holding you in place and an external force would move you out of your space, the force must succeed at a check against either the DC of the effect holding you in place or the relevant defense (usually Fortitude DC) of the monster holding you in place.
They can be moved, but only by making the check, and it doesn't say it ends the effect.
Perhaps the immobilized trait needs to add that the effects is ended, but lacking that callout my only conclusion is that you move both the grabber and the grabbed.
I don't know what a 3rd possibility would look like, I just can't imagine it.
Ultimately this edition missed the very common desire of people to try to extricate their friends and allies from a grapple and how that should be handled.
In PF1 there only rule was that attempting to join the grapple to free someone amounted to a +1 aid attempt for the ally to get free. Most people were displeased with that despite that being the only rule on the issue.
I am trying to bridge the gap in the lack of rules by making some interpretations while adhering as much as I can to the rules.
BellyBeard |
I think external forces break the grapple. But I also understand not saying that explicitly at that part of the book where it details the immobilized condition, because sometimes immobilized wouldn't be broken by a forced movement. For example, if you're immobilized by being thoroughly tangled in a net or bound, your horse moving would take the net/bindings with it. If immobilized by being paralyzed from the waist down, the horse would not cure you by moving underneath you (that begs the question of how you are riding a horse while partially paralyzed, but it's just an example).
It should maybe read that the external force can take the escape action for you, or something like that. Because it seems to me that's what's being conveyed (just what makes sense to me).
Claxon |
I would be open to the rules being modified to reflect that, if it's the intention.
But barring that I don't support that interpretation at this time.
To me the horse "pulling" (really the riders is gripping the horse with their legs) is just going to drag the grappler with them (or the grappler will choose to let go) or the rider is going to pulled off the horse.
The most upsetting thing really here is that Paizo didn't account for this sort of thing in the second edition of Pathfinder, when it was a problem is PF1 as well.