Hi everyone!
I'm about to GM an important fight during Age of Ashes campaign and since the monster is really big and has the grab ability i was wondering..
If the monster grab a character at 20 feet distance (6 meters|4 squares)...can the grabbed character attack the monster even if it is clearly out of range for him? (normal medium character range is 5 feet| 1,5 meters).
And if the answer is yes what happens if an ally of that character go next him? Can he attack the monster from 20 feet even if normally couldn't?
I hope the question is clear.
Kind regards,
Marco
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
From the Size and Reach rules "Sometimes part of a creature extends beyond its space, such as if a giant octopus is grabbing you with its tentacles. In that case, the GM will usually allow attacking the extended portion, even if you can’t reach the main creature."
You'd need a pretty specific reason for ruling that someone couldn't attack the limb that is holding onto them to make any sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
see if this helps:
Hi everyone!
I'm about to GM an important fight during Age of Ashes campaign and since the monster is really big and has the grab ability i was wondering..
If the monster grab a character at 20 feet distance (6 meters|4 squares)...can the grabbed character attack the monster even if it is clearly out of range for him? (normal medium character range is 5 feet| 1,5 meters).
And if the answer is yes what happens if an ally of that character go next him? Can he attack the monster from 20 feet even if normally couldn't?
I hope the question is clear.
Kind regards,
Marco
The question is clear, but the answer is not.
Short answer is, the rules are not clear, and you'll have to decide for yourself as the GM what works at your table.
As written, if you're grabbed, you cannot move. If a target is out of reach, you cannot attack it.
There is some vague guidance under the rules for space about being able to target a limb in such situations. Otherwise targeting limbs is not a thing. I don't really find said guidance all that helpful, but it is what it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hammerjack quoted the answer. Magnus Arcanus is just bitter about the discussion thread linked earlier.
I am bitter about a lot of things.
Posters I've never met before on a random Pathfinder thread is most certainly not one of them.
But thanks for thinking of me!
|
I think the wording in the rules are to make it flexible:
As said before - normally you can attack the creature
Octopus - you just attack it even if it grapples you at a distance
Exemptions I'm aware off
Giant Frog - you are grappled and can't move away (but can move closer). You can cut off the tongue but I would not regard it as an attack on the Giant Frog as the tongue has a lower AC, needs slashing to cut (you are out of luck with piercing/bludgeoning)
The Gill Hook (weapon). You grapple with reach. I know it is tables turned - but I would rule a shark grappled by it could attack the weapon but not the wielder
First of all thank you everyone for the answers.
I always ruled (both in PF1 and now in PF2) that if a creature is grappling me with a natural attack of some kind (tongue, limb or whatever) i can strike it back and even kill the creature if it reaches 0 hp.
My dubts are in regards of other characters (ally of the grappled one).
Would you rule that if a monster with 30 feet reach grab something everyone in the field adjacent to the grabbed creature can attack the monster just because the grabbed one can?
Because that is changing a lot on monster balancement and the grab ability become a burden and not a powerfull tool in my opinion (yes you immobilize someone but everyone now can attack you from distance with melee weapon).
Thank you in advance for you answers,
Marco
First of all thank you everyone for the answers.
I always ruled (both in PF1 and now in PF2) that if a creature is grappling me with a natural attack of some kind (tongue, limb or whatever) i can strike it back and even kill the creature if it reaches 0 hp.My dubts are in regards of other characters (ally of the grappled one).
Would you rule that if a monster with 30 feet reach grab something everyone in the field adjacent to the grabbed creature can attack the monster just because the grabbed one can?Because that is changing a lot on monster balancement and the grab ability become a burden and not a powerfull tool in my opinion (yes you immobilize someone but everyone now can attack you from distance with melee weapon).
Thank you in advance for you answers,
Marco
PF1e was cleaner in this regard because if the grabbed creature was not adjacent, it was moved into an adjacent open space to the creature grabbing it. The situation described above never really ever happened in PF1e.
If you feel allowing such attacks against a grabbing creature isn't something you want, just don't allow it; there is no hard rule that allows creatures can attack outside their reach absent such specific abilities like feats and whatnot. There is guidance for why you might want to allow it, but such guidance is quite literally up for the GM to decide.
And if you want my actual experience, I too am running Age of Ashes, I am pretty sure I know what encounter you're running that caused you to post your question here. I ruled a grabbed PC could attack the grabbing creature, even if out of reach, but other PCs adjacent to the grabbed character could not. I did rule being adjacent to the grabbed character was sufficient for using Aid if they wanted.
In the end it kind of didn't matter in my game; the creature in question that was doing the grabbing wasn't trained in Athletics, which makes the Escape DC from the grab super easy. Even the weak wizard in my group easily got out of the grab. The whole grabbing aspect of the creature was not all that interesting, and really wound up being a tactically inferior option. It would have been far better to just fly around 15 feet off the ground and make bite attacks the whole time.
I think the wording in the rules are to make it flexible
I disagree
in the case, I believe the rules section in question was subcontracted to a boogle of weasels with, you know, the expected results of such:lots of weasel words
I always ruled (both in PF1 and now in PF2) that if a creature is grappling me with a natural attack of some kind (tongue, limb or whatever) i can strike it back and even kill the creature if it reaches 0 hp.
My doubts are in regards of other characters (ally of the grappled one).
Would you rule that if a monster with 30 feet reach grab something everyone in the field adjacent to the grabbed creature can attack the monster just because the grabbed one can?
First edition wasn’t vague amid ambiguous - at least not in this case:
If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails).
that, like so much other goodness, like so much other clarifying stuff, like so much ‘no words of the mustelidae’, was excised from the wording between editions
sadly, why this was so has been lost to time ...
PF1e was cleaner in this regard because if the grabbed creature was not adjacent, it was moved into an adjacent open space to the creature grabbing it. The situation described above never really ever happened in PF1e.
It was "cleaner" mechanically but to my opinion it was "uglier" from a design and logic point of view.
To me it was terrible to see a colossal creature like a Kraken bound to drag enemies closer and losing all the reach/treat area stuff.But that is just a personal opinion.
I ruled a grabbed PC could attack the grabbing creature, even if out of reach, but other PCs adjacent to the grabbed character could not.
I was thinking about the same kind of ruling (for now) for balance reasons.
I did rule being adjacent to the grabbed character was sufficient for using Aid if they wanted.
I will surely try this out! Thank you :)