So in a game of PFS I was in, my bird companion dazzled an enemy. That enemy then hit my bird, grabbed him, and attacked him. My GM ruled that neither the grab attempt nor the second attack suffered the dazzled penalty, as the attack that included an attempt at a grab didnt worry due to the fact that the first attack hit, and since he was grappled, it didnt apply to the second attack either. Is that right?
Yeah, the Grab is part of successfully attacking/touching your PC in the first attack.
The second attack should have a penalty if it's normal, but there's a chance it was a Constrict, requiring no attack roll so no miss chance.
If I have somebody grabbed w/ one hand, I know which direction to swing even if I'm blinded/dazzled, but my poor eyesight would still hinder my accuracy. I can understand the GM thinking holding was enough to target normally, but I disagree (barring any special abilities).
It was pfs against undead (just realized I never checked this thread for the answers after I posted it
For an image:
First attack: A crocodile has grab on its bite attack. It successfully bits its target. The 'grab' is just 'not letting go with the bite'.
Second Atttack: Two people are wrestling, and one got blinded. Angered by this, he tried to punch his opponent. His opponent sees this, but moves his head to the left to avoid the straight punch.
Even though they remained in contact, there was defensive movement there that would be hard to react to if you didn't see it happen.
House rule for a counter example Second Attack: While the crocodile does not have constrict rules, I feel its DEATH ROLL should be excused from sight related penalties. Because I honestly question whether the crocodile can really even pay attention to what you are doing while it is spinning its entire body around in attempt to rip out your flesh. This is all about what the crocodile is doing, and whether the target can slip out of the bite in general.