I cannot Escape a grapple while polymorphed?

[Cyrad]

Almost all battle form polymorph spells have some version of the following text.

Quote:

One or more unarmed melee attacks specific to the battle form you choose, which are the only attacks you can use.

The second printing errata defines attacks as any check with the attack trait.

Quote:

An attack is any check that has the attack trait. It applies and increases the multiple attack penalty.

So if I become the god of liberation, I cannot Escape a grab? Or Disarm, Trip, or Shove? And if my form gives me an unarmed attack with disarm, I cannot actually Disarm anyone?

I feel like the original intent was to prohibit other types of Strikes or prohibit other types of unarmed attacks, but the second printing makes it clear that's not what the text means anymore. If the spell says "[these] are the only attacks you can use," then you cannot do anything that has a check with the attack trait.

[Themetricsystem]

If the form gives you an Unarmed Attack that explicitly has the Disarm Trait then you can use it, otherwise no.

As for the whole Escape deal... yeah that's RAW, more than a bit unfortunate and it probably should have an exception made for it but that's legit... sad, but true.

[thenobledrake]

If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.

Don't let a rule written to prevent trying to stack together monk stances and battle form benefits make you think you can't try actions that make sense to be able to try.

[breithauptclan]

*facepalm*

Yeah, I would houserule that back to RAI. While in polymorph battle form you can't use other melee, ranged, or spell attacks. You can still use skill-based actions that have the attack trait such as disarm, grapple, or trip.

But I'll agree that RAW it wouldn't allow such things.

[pauljathome]

That does seem to be RAW

So fat, I've yet to run into a GM so silly as to enforce the RAW.

It is utterly absurd that an animal can't escape a grapple.

[Gortle]

It's RAW, it's stupid, ignore it - everyone else does.

Which is what RAW tells you to do when you run into something like this.

If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.

[Cordell Kintner]

Gortle wrote:

It's RAW, it's stupid, ignore it - everyone else does.

If only more people had this way of thinking on these forums... All our threads would be much shorter and less angry.

[The Raven Black]

TBH it is extremely rare to have everyone agree that a given RAW is stupid and should be ignored (I agree with above posters BTW) . Which is good I guess and shows pretty high levels of consistency within the RAW.

[Cyrad]

thenobledrake wrote:

If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.

Don't let a rule written to prevent trying to stack together monk stances and battle form benefits make you think you can't try actions that make sense to be able to try.

Sadly, you don't have this option in Pathfinder Society, which is pretty much the only time I can ever play.

[HammerJack]

This is a clear enough mistake that even running society games I absolutely do not apply the "polymorph prevents escape " nonsense. Nor do I see other people doing so. Nor do I think you're likely to find any venture critters telling people that they should do so.

[thenobledrake]

Cyrad wrote:

thenobledrake wrote:

If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.

Don't let a rule written to prevent trying to stack together monk stances and battle form benefits make you think you can't try actions that make sense to be able to try.

Sadly, you don't have this option in Pathfinder Society, which is pretty much the only time I can ever play.

Society play still has people involved in the running process, so I wouldn't stress about it.

It's far more likely that you try to do a thing that makes sense like Escape even though you're currently a cat and the GM resolves how it happens than it is that the GM has both the encyclopedic knowledge of what wording the rules text uses and the hardline stance necessary to say "you can't do that" about it.

[Thod]

As PFS GM (5 star, close to 4 glyphs) my experience is that GMs have enough power to avoid RAW-stupid rulings.

It is mainly players who come up with ‚interesting‘ concepts that stretch game-play in the name of RAW.

Yes - reminds me of the grappling camel companion I got ambushed with as GM in a PFS game. All RAW legal according to the player - was a while ago - so 1e - and it included a polymorph spell.

[Nefreet]

Cyrad wrote:

thenobledrake wrote:

If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.

Sadly, you don't have this option in Pathfinder Society, which is pretty much the only time I can ever play.

Huh?

It's not an "option", it's a Core rule, and you're specifically allowed to use it.

If you partake in the Organized Play Forums you'll often see this rule cited over and over again.

[Cyrad]

Nefreet wrote:

Cyrad wrote:

thenobledrake wrote:

If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.

Sadly, you don't have this option in Pathfinder Society, which is pretty much the only time I can ever play.

Huh?

It's not an "option", it's a Core rule, and you're specifically allowed to use it.

If you partake in the Organized Play Forums you'll often see this rule cited over and over again.

Would it apply to this situation given that it concerns a hard rule interaction? And that there's a FAQ/Errata that specifically addresses and clarifies interactions with the attack trait?

Quote:

As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgments, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com. What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases not covered in these sources.

[Deth Braedon]

Gortle wrote:

It's RAW, it's stupid, ignore it - everyone else does.

sadly, this has become much more of a norm than in any of my prior RPG experiences

and I played three editions of Tunnels & Trolls

[swoosh]

Be glad you never played PF1 or 3.5 then.

[Krugus]

I agree with what the others have said, otherwise why give a bonus to Athletics ?

[HammerJack]

Krugus wrote:

I agree with what the others have said, otherwise why give a bonus to Athletics ?

This doesn't make sense. Escape is not the only thing Athletics is used for.

[Deth Braedon]

swoosh wrote:

Be glad you never played PF1 or 3.5 then.

queue the laughing raccoon

played both
had hoped PF2e would be to PF1e what PF1e was to 3.5
uh newp

[Aw3som3-117]

Deth Braedon wrote:

Gortle wrote:

It's RAW, it's stupid, ignore it - everyone else does.

sadly, this has become much more of a norm than in any of my prior RPG experiences

and I played three editions of Tunnels & Trolls

Not sure what group you're in that that attitude is common. Honestly, this is the first thing I've seen that's actively dumb from a RAW perspective so far. And I've seen my fair share of dumb RAW before I switched from 5e. Granted, I'm fairly new to PF2 in the grand scheme of things, but I've done a lot of digging into the rules for some higher level characters I created.

[graystone]

Krugus wrote:

I agree with what the others have said, otherwise why give a bonus to Athletics ?

Maybe swim, climb and jump?

[Gortle]

graystone wrote:

Krugus wrote:

I agree with what the others have said, otherwise why give a bonus to Athletics ?

Maybe swim, climb and jump?

Which are all minor secondary uses of Athletics. From mid level when flight becomes common they are hardly ever relevant.

Along with common sense, it is why everyone agrees that the actual rule here was not intended to stop athletics skill checks which also happen to be attacks.

[Gortle]

Gortle wrote:

graystone wrote:

Krugus wrote:

I agree with what the others have said, otherwise why give a bonus to Athletics ?

Maybe swim, climb and jump?

Which are all minor secondary uses of Athletics. From mid level when flight becomes common they are hardly ever relevant. Plus they are mostly trap options - if these things are important in a scenario, remember most Battle Forms only last 1 minute, then take a form that has a climb or swim speed and have a much easier time of it.

Along with common sense - animals do all these things, it is why everyone agrees that the actual rule here was not intended to stop athletics skill checks which also happen to be attacks.

[graystone]

Gortle wrote:

Which are all minor secondary uses of Athletics. From mid level when flight becomes common they are hardly ever relevant.

Are they? you can start casting spells with battle forms at 1st level... Also, who's flying underwater?

Gortle wrote:

Plus they are mostly trap options - if these things are important in a scenario, remember most Battle Forms only last 1 minute, then take a form that has a climb or swim speed and have a much easier time of it.

I think the more important part is to make it so that a battle form is able to do basic things like climb, jump or swim: it'd be kind of pathetic if a Dinosaur Form user can be stopped from following someone because they can't hop over a 10' pit. As to "trap options" because they are 1 min, well you aren't getting them most times for the movement but the battle form.

Gortle wrote:

Along with common sense, it is why everyone agrees that the actual rule here was not intended to stop athletics skill checks which also happen to be attacks.

Nothing stops you from making Athletics checks, just some specific actions like Escape [which is NOT limited to Athletics] with the Attack trait. As such, it's is very much unclear that they are meant to be allowed. IMO, the thing that seems off more is that Escape has the Attack trait than battle forms not allowing other Attacks.

[Nefreet]

Cyrad wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

Cyrad wrote:

thenobledrake wrote:

If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.

Sadly, you don't have this option in Pathfinder Society, which is pretty much the only time I can ever play.

Huh?

It's not an "option", it's a Core rule, and you're specifically allowed to use it.

If you partake in the Organized Play Forums you'll often see this rule cited over and over again.

Would it apply to this situation given that it concerns a hard rule interaction? And that there's a FAQ/Errata that specifically addresses and clarifies interactions with the attack trait?

Quote:

As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgments, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com. What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases not covered in these sources.

Absolutely, because, as has already been stated, the link quoted is itself a Core rule.

[RexAliquid]

Cyrad wrote:

Would it apply to this situation given that it concerns a hard rule interaction? And that there's a FAQ/Errata that specifically addresses and clarifies interactions with the attack trait?

Are you suggesting the rule is working as intended? If you don't think this interaction is problematic, you don't need to find a good solution.

[Gortle]

graystone wrote:

Gortle wrote:

Plus they are mostly trap options - if these things are important in a scenario, remember most Battle Forms only last 1 minute, then take a form that has a climb or swim speed and have a much easier time of it.

I think the more important part is to make it so that a battle form is able to do basic things like climb, jump or swim: it'd be kind of pathetic if a Dinosaur Form user can be stopped from following someone because they can't hop over a 10' pit. As to "trap options" because they are 1 min, well you aren't getting them most times for the movement but the battle form.

Don't forget you still have all your normal skills anyway. So not likely to be a problem.

We disagree on this, again. Moving on.

[graystone]

Gortle wrote:

Don't forget you still have all your normal skills anyway. So not likely to be a problem.

While technically true, you do not have physical stats for the form, so when it's figured into the attack and built in athletics rolls you don't have it for your own skills. So for instance, you where a 8 str wizard, with no training in athletics, in dinosaur form and it didn't give athletics... You'd be pretty poor at swimming, running and jumping. As such, "you still have all your normal skills anyway" really doesn't cut it: how often do your arcane casters rock awesome Athletics? It's the same reason Aerial Form gives out Acrobatics so your aren't flying into things.

[Alchemic_Genius]

Given that paizo shot down finesse combat maneuvers, claiming there was a difference between an attack and a skill action with the attack trait, current RAW actually supports the notion that battle forms do not prevent you from disarming, shoving, grappling, etc or escaping

[Gortle]

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

Given that paizo shot down finesse combat maneuvers, claiming there was a difference between an attack and a skill action with the attack trait, current RAW actually supports the notion that battle forms do not prevent you from disarming, shoving, grappling, etc or escaping

That is misleading.

They split out attack roll from attack.

Its not relevant to this situation.

[graystone]

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

claiming there was a difference between an attack and a skill action with the attack trait

Not quite right: it was 'a difference between an Attack ROLLS and a skill ROLLS with the attack trait. An attack is still any check that has the attack trait.

[Alchemic_Genius]

The entry for what an attack is in the CRB, pg 12, is:

"When a creature tries to harm another creature, it makes a Strike or uses some other attack action. Most attacks are Strikes made with a weapon, but a character might Strike with their fist, grapple or shove with their hands, or attack with a spell."

You can easily argue that this disallows for combat maneuvers, but "has the attack trait" is not a defining feature of an attack. Trying to argue an escape is an attack under this definition is outright absurd. Not only is trying to argue an escape in an attack prevented by polymorph pedantic, it's incorrectly pedantic to RAW

[Guntermench]

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

The entry for what an attack is in the CRB, pg 12, is:

"When a creature tries to harm another creature, it makes a Strike or uses some other attack action. Most attacks are Strikes made with a weapon, but a character might Strike with their fist, grapple or shove with their hands, or attack with a spell."

You can easily argue that this disallows for combat maneuvers, but "has the attack trait" is not a defining feature of an attack. Trying to argue an escape is an attack under this definition is outright absurd. Not only is trying to argue an escape in an attack prevented by polymorph pedantic, it's incorrectly pedantic to RAW

The entire errata for attack rolls is as follows:

Quote:

Page 446: Attack Rolls. There was some confusion as to whether skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) are also attack rolls at the same time. They are not. To make this clear, add this sentence to the beginning of the definition of attack roll "When you use a Strike action or make a spell attack, you attempt a check called an attack roll."

To clarify the different rules elements involved:

An attack is any check that has the attack trait. It applies and increases the multiple attack penalty.

An attack roll is one of the core types of checks in the game (along with saving throws, skill checks, and Perception checks). They are used for Strikes and spell attacks, and traditionally target Armor Class.

Some skill actions have the attack trait, specifically Athletics actions such as Grapple and Trip. You still make a skill check with these skills, not an attack roll.

The multiple attack penalty applies on those skill actions as well. As it says later on in the definition of attack roll "Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls." There is inaccurate language in the Multiple Attack Penalty section implying it applies only to attack rolls that will be receiving errata.

The relevant bits are: "An attack is any check that has the attack trait" and "Some skill actions have the attack trait"

[graystone]

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

You can easily argue that this disallows for combat maneuvers, but "has the attack trait" is not a defining feature of an attack.

Not really. FAQ: "An attack is any check that has the attack trait."

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

Trying to argue an escape is an attack under this definition is outright absurd.

It's LITERALY the rules. Using Escape applies and increases the multiple attack penalty.

[Alchemic_Genius]

Curse you erratas for banning escape checks just because people wanted to use dex based combat maneuvers!

[Guntermench]

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

Curse you erratas for banning escape checks just because people wanted to use dex based combat maneuvers!

I don't think it was the errata that banned it, it just made it clear. It always had the attack trait.

[Alchemic_Genius]

The errata is what defined attacks as anything with the attack trait. Before it wasn't as explicit; the attack keyword I quoted and the attack trait were seperate, albeit highly related entities before, but the faq is what added the line that all things with the attack trait are attacks.

If you want to say I'm splitting hairs, well... it's also splitting hairs to say escaping a grab is attacking them, so *shrug*

[Guntermench]

The Glossary and Index always stated "attack (trait) An ability with this trait involves an attack", so it was explicit. It was just in the back of the book.

[Gortle]

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

The entry for what an attack is in the CRB, pg 12, is:

"When a creature tries to harm another creature, it makes a Strike or uses some other attack action. Most attacks are Strikes made with a weapon, but a character might Strike with their fist, grapple or shove with their hands, or attack with a spell."

You can easily argue that this disallows for combat maneuvers, but "has the attack trait" is not a defining feature of an attack. Trying to argue an escape is an attack under this definition is outright absurd. Not only is trying to argue an escape in an attack prevented by polymorph pedantic, it's incorrectly pedantic to RAW

The terms mentioned in CRB page 12 and 13 are described indirectly. Full sentences are used and the terms are placed in their correct context. They are not definitions, but descriptive sentences for you to understand the terms. It is a complete sentence that says exactly what it says and nothing more. It says something about an attack, but it does so with open language and is not a definition.

It makes complete sense.

Guntermench wrote:

has provided you with the rule definition.

[calnivo]

In June 2022 this has officially been answered by CRB Errata, see https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq > Pathfinder Core Rulebook Errata (3rd Printing):

Quote / Paizo (https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq) wrote:

Pages 316, 317, 318, 330, 332, 335, 347, 353, 354, 358: In aerial form, animal form, avatar, dinosaur form, dragon form, elemental form, insect form, monstrosity form, nature incarnate, plant form, change "only attacks you can use" to "only attacks you can Strike with." You can still use non-Strike attacks like Grapple and Trip as normal.

Note that as of 2023-05-05 certain spells in other rulebooks (e.g. Ooze Form from Secrets of Magic) still contain the old, incorrect wording. My view: This is because they did not receive an equivalent amount of errata, yet, and it's not Rules-as-intended.

PS: Please forgive me the thread necromancy, but since it was still one of the top results when searching for Escape, I thought it was useful to have the answer finally here, as well.

[Ravingdork]

calnivo wrote:

Please forgive me the thread necromancy, but since it was still one of the top results when searching for Escape, I thought it was useful to have the answer finally here, as well.

I never understood why people needed to apologize for being helpful.

[calnivo]

Ravingdork wrote:

calnivo wrote:

Please forgive me the thread necromancy, but since it was still one of the top results when searching for Escape, I thought it was useful to have the answer finally here, as well.

I never understood why people needed to apologize for being helpful.

Hi Ravingdork, I am relatively new here and can only speak for myself. I presume I wrote above statement because I've been in a forums where I interpreted users reactions to frown upon reviving several year old threads. Maybe a prejudice translated to this forum - which combined with my personal preference for harmonious coexistence. Idk. Will value your comment to refine my future answers. Thx.

[breithauptclan]

Bringing back up a thread for no reason is frowned on. Continuing a discussion with people who may not even be on these forums regularly any more is strange. And often the new comments don't change anything that was already said previously.

Asking a related question is usually best done by starting a new thread and linking to the existing threads on the topic.

What you are doing though, is useful. You are right that these old threads are still often the top hits on searches. So putting in a resolution for them if they don't already have one is a benefit worth having an old thread back on the front page again for a day or three.

[Gortle]

Ravingdork wrote:

calnivo wrote:

Please forgive me the thread necromancy, but since it was still one of the top results when searching for Escape, I thought it was useful to have the answer finally here, as well.

I never understood why people needed to apologize for being helpful.

Because there are many cultures in the world. In some correcting another person is incredibly rude.

Personally I'm happy with it providing you actually read what has already been said first and aren't just taking one phrase out of context.

[Ravingdork]

calnivo wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

calnivo wrote:

Please forgive me the thread necromancy, but since it was still one of the top results when searching for Escape, I thought it was useful to have the answer finally here, as well.

I never understood why people needed to apologize for being helpful.

Hi Ravingdork, I am relatively new here and can only speak for myself. I presume I wrote above statement because I've been in a forums where I interpreted users reactions to frown upon reviving several year old threads. Maybe a prejudice translated to this forum - which combined with my personal preference for harmonious coexistence. Idk. Will value your comment to refine my future answers. Thx.

I've been chastised for being similarly helpful, so you being ahead of the curve is probably for the best.