| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Relevant Vid: https://youtu.be/PKgZXvzqOG8
I'm preparing to run my first PF2e game and I'm reading/watching as much as I can to prepare for it. Most of my friends are 3.5 versed, but we've been playing 5e for a long time, so I'm mainly looking to avoid traps that my players might fall into thinking this is a 1-1 swap.
Watching this video above brought up some questions, so I wanted to know how rigid are these rules? The examples they gave seem very exploitative and less "fun" though obviously YMMV.
1) One example they brought up was a 2H person using a hand to initiate a grapple, then gripping their sword with both hands again to Strike, then continuing to maintain their grapple. Is that allowed? I get the end result of the grapple is to prevent movement, but I assume once they "let go" of the target, the grapple would need to be reapplied.
2) Another example they proposed was grappling a target, then tripping them (basically pushing someone to the ground and sitting on them). Is that allowed too?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Haven't watched the video. I can at least weigh in on the questions asked though.
1) One example they brought up was a 2H person using a hand to initiate a grapple, then gripping their sword with both hands again to Strike, then continuing to maintain their grapple. Is that allowed? I get the end result of the grapple is to prevent movement, but I assume once they "let go" of the target, the grapple would need to be reapplied.
This feels like an exploit. It is difficult to prove that RAW though. I would rule that like stances, as soon as you violate the requirements, then you are no longer grappling the opponent. So when you change grip on your weapon back to 2-handed, then you no longer have a hand free to meet the requirements of grapple. But I am sure that there are people who will argue differently.
2) Another example they proposed was grappling a target, then tripping them (basically pushing someone to the ground and sitting on them). Is that allowed too?
This one I would allow. As long as they have a hand free to keep grappling, there is nothing that I am aware of that says that you can't also make a trip attack.
Sitting on them would best fit the Restrained condition though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) One example they brought up was a 2H person using a hand to initiate a grapple, then gripping their sword with both hands again to Strike, then continuing to maintain their grapple. Is that allowed? I get the end result of the grapple is to prevent movement, but I assume once they "let go" of the target, the grapple would need to be reapplied.
That is a rather literal reading of the rule. PF2 is not a legalistic game . That is a PF1 idea many players are bringing into PF2.
The text of an ability is also considered rules text. Not just the requirement or action text.
The idea of a grapple is clearly spelled out. "You attempt to grab a creature or object with your free hand."
You are using that hand to grapple. You don't get to maintain a grapple while grasping a two-handed weapon with both hands and swinging it. I'm not sure any DM would allow this as it clearly makes no sense and I doubt any developer would back up a player trying to argue this.
Don't let players lock you into boxes in PF2. It's not intended. PF2 is not PF1 or 3rd edition where the rules text is absolute and you have to abide by it like a Bible. Grappling is clearly meant to require a free hand to maintain it unless you have some kind of grappling weapon.
2) Another example they proposed was grappling a target, then tripping them (basically pushing someone to the ground and sitting on them). Is that allowed too?
Sure, it's allowed. It wouldn't do anything other than a grapple and trip which would be fairly difficult to pull off given both have the Attack trait which would cause a MAP on the trip.
I imagine for flavor text the player can say they grappled the target, threw them to the ground, and sat on them. The opponent could still attack the target grappling them, and the player would have to maintain the grapple from round to round by making their roll.
So not sure that tactic would do much other than focus the monster on attacking the person grappling them.
You're going to be more shocked by how hard things are in PF2 if coming from 5E and 3.5. So are your players in terms of rolling.
These concerns are going to seem fairly minor once you start playing PF2 and your players go, "Whoa. We're getting hit like crazy. And these things hit real hard."
|
I think I would have no problem with allowing the player to do this (after all it is the RAW and does not feel too good at first glance). Other GMs will rule No. And if it ends up too good to be true, I will reverse my ruling (but warn the player about this possibility beforehand).
In the end, it is completely GM's choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think most of the people have it right here. First one sounds incredibly iffy based on what's actually happening in game. There's a reason you need to have a hand free to grapple someone (outside of the trait being on a weapon), and most people seem to agree you need that hand throughout the duration of the grapple.
For #2 there's nothing in the rules to support grapple and trip being mutually exclusive. If someone has a hard time figuring out how a character can be thrown off balance and grabbed at the same time I think there are going to be a lot bigger points of contention later on, especially at higher levels.
A real world way of making something work doesn't necessarily have to exist for the game mechanic to make sense. But, even if it did, I see several solutions, such as:
1. Grabbing someone and then controlling them and holding them in place in an awkward position. The only requirement for "trip" thematically is that they are awkward enough to get a -2 to attack and be flat-footed and that they need to take a move action to get out of it, so this makes sense.
2. Tripping someone and then "grappling" them with a leg or foot (You'd still need a hand free for balance, but thematically you could pin them to the ground with your leg).
3. Going to the ground with them in a true, controlled grapple like you see in a lot of martial arts. Generally speaking this would imply being on the ground with the enemy as well, but again, there's nothing wrong with the mechanics and flavor being slightly off from one another imo.
Thanks for the replies.
I don't think I'll allow someone to exploit grappling just because it doesn't pass the Sniff Test for me.
How often do people Grapple/Trip a target? I don't plan on bringing it up to me group, but once it's discovered, is it too efficient? Should I expect it every combat? To possibly avoid the MAP, could one player Grapple, then another come up and Trip?
How often are Trip and Grapple used?
All the time by some people. They are good options to have.
Does teamwork make them better?
Absolutely.
Is it a problem that using maneuvers with teamwork is good?
I don't think so. I'd definitely call that more feature than bug.
How often are Trip and Grapple used?
All the time by some people. They are good options to have.
Does teamwork make them better?
Absolutely.
Is it a problem that using maneuvers with teamwork is good?
I don't think so. I'd definitely call that more feature than bug.
Yep. Also, PF2 can be a hard game and tactics like this aren't meant to be encouraged. This isn't PF1 where you have to worry about the APL+3 monster getting taken out in one round. Just read the encounter budget rules in the CRB and then trust them. They work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks.
I'm more worried that Grapple/Trip is always the opening salvo.
Seems like combat could get boring if stunlock is always the first option. I'll get a better idea after some combats under my belt; I just don't want my players to stumble upon this and think the game is "solved".
Thanks.
I'm more worried that Grapple/Trip is always the opening salvo.
Seems like combat could get boring if stunlock is always the first option. I'll get a better idea after some combats under my belt; I just don't want my players to stumble upon this and think the game is "solved".
You don't need to grapple to trip someone. Grapple doesn't even help trip them. They provide the same circumstance bonus. I don't think you'll have to worry about grapple and trip together. If someone grappled and tripped, they would be at -8 to 10 on their third attack. If they're setting up the rest of the party to gain a flat-footed bonus, they can grapple or trip. Either one does it.
The only issue I have with the grapple and swing a two-handed weapon absent something like additional hands or tentacles is it just ruins verisimilitude. Rules should not be used in a manner that ruins verisimilitude.
I'm going to disagree with most of the rest of the posters here.
The rule is explicit You can Grapple a target you already have grabbed or restrained without having a hand free.
There is not pages of text to complicate it. The whole sentence clearly only has one purpose. I can't see how this is an accidental mistake.
The real restriction on grappling someone is that you have to stay within reach. You can't move away.
Presumably this mean you are leaning on then with your sholder/elbow or holding them with your foot so you have your arm free, but the grappled person is more restricted. Perhaps its just a couple of touches on your part.
Maybe it doesn't make a lot of sense if they aren't prone or restrained.
I think it is even more odd if you are using a weapon to grapple, then you can continue to attack with it. Including other targets.
In defense of the rules. Grappled/ Restrained only lasts one round and has to be reapplied to continue. So perhaps its really talking about being off balance or in a bad position as much as anything else.
Thanks.
I'm more worried that Grapple/Trip is always the opening salvo.
Seems like combat could get boring if stunlock is always the first option. I'll get a better idea after some combats under my belt; I just don't want my players to stumble upon this and think the game is "solved".
If stun locking an enemy is an effective use of actions, you probably outnumber the enemy. Which means it is probably a boss monster. You then need to succeed against an athletics check against both its fort DC and reflex DC. At least one of those saves is probably pretty high. And one of those checks is at a -5, if the same character does both. And on a critical failure that character knocks themselves prone.
Also, that boss is probably strong enough to attack from prone and still tear your liver out, at which point they don't need to break the grapple and can just a single action to stand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to disagree with most of the rest of the posters here.
The rule is explicit You can Grapple a target you already have grabbed or restrained without having a hand free.
There is not pages of text to complicate it. The whole sentence clearly only has one purpose. I can't see how this is an accidental mistake.
The real restriction on grappling someone is that you have to stay within reach. You can't move away.
Presumably this mean you are leaning on then with your sholder/elbow or holding them with your foot so you have your arm free, but the grappled person is more restricted. Perhaps its just a couple of touches on your part.
Maybe it doesn't make a lot of sense if they aren't prone or restrained.
I think it is even more odd if you are using a weapon to grapple, then you can continue to attack with it. Including other targets.
In defense of the rules. Grappled/ Restrained only lasts one round and has to be reapplied to continue. So perhaps its really talking about being off balance or in a bad position as much as anything else.
So you would allow someone to maintain a grapple and keep attacking with the weapon they used to grapple because a game designer did not tell you otherwise?
You are really making me dislike PF2. At least in PF1 they made grapple work somewhat like it should without arguments like this coming up which turns grapple into something ridiculous and nonsensical.
If this starts causing table arguments when DMs who know how grappling works want some semblance of verisimilitude will not allow you to use the weapon your grappling with to keep attacking or requiring nonsense grappling where you release the grapple and swing a greatsword while the target remains "grappled" because a nonsensical rule says they do.
For me the versimilitude issue is around grappling only lasting a turn - they automatically become free at the end of you next turn. To me that is the issue.
So I don't think that term grapple means what normal people think it does. Its more of a grab that the enemy moves out of.
Personally I think that different people are visualizing this very differently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The assumption I'm making based on that quoted sentence, and I'd presume it's the same for most other people ruling the same way as I am, is that Grappling occupies your hand, so in order to start a Grapple you must have a free hand, but to maintain a Grapple you do not need a free hand, because you already have a hand on your target.
Yeah, I am with you on that one. You need the rule for being able to maintain a grapple while not having a hand free because your free hand you had when you started the grapple is now occupied holding an enemy character.
There is no such thing as maintaining a grapple !?!
Imagine being able to grapple someone without touching them because you grappled them 6 seconds ago.
I grapple my opponent. Now that he's grabbed, I adjust my grip and attack.
Next turn > I grapple him while both my hands are on my sword and both my feet are on the ground.
Ok so lets apply a bit of sense to this. Dont care about the rules as much as getting the moment right.
I grab an enemy with my free hand, my other hand is holding my greatsword.
turn 1
Action 1 - grab
Action 2 - adjust grip ( as a gm i rule you just gave up your grab effect.) But! Lets keep the effect in place using shoulders and body weight or whatever.
Action 3 - strike with greatsword. ( i rule you dont have the ability to swing it normally because you have your body weight holding your foe pinned to a wall or something. I will allow the use of the greatsword as an improvised weapon because you are hitting the foe with it in an unorthodox manner)
This is what i would do. You cannot swing the greatsword properly to get that full 1d12 effect it normally does. I would allow using it as a improvised either with one hand or with two but while putting ones body weight into an enemy to pin them to a wall. The weapon cannot be as effective as normal when you cant properly wield it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your player wants to bash things with a two-handed weapon while simultaneously grappling, I would advise that you recommend they get a two-handed weapon with the grapple trait.
That will allow them to Strike with the weapon, grapple with the weapon, and continue Striking with the weapon, without ever needing to adjust their hands.
That's also why I would say "no" to your first question; it greatly invalidates the strengths of grapple weapons.
To your more recent question: I don't often see grapple and trip used together (many of the penalties are redundant). I do see them individually all the time, however. Provided you meet the conditions of each, using them both is most certainly allowed (but not as part of the same Action).
For me the versimilitude issue is around grappling only lasting a turn - they automatically become free at the end of you next turn. To me that is the issue.
So I don't think that term grapple means what normal people think it does. Its more of a grab that the enemy moves out of.
Personally I think that different people are visualizing this very differently.
You just reminded me that my primary table's Grapple is significantly house-ruled. Once the grapple connects, you sustain the Grapple a la Raising a Shield. It's an action tax, but you don't make a new check. The grappled person needs to make an escape.
-------------------
TBH, this change can be very dangerous for PCs, and it's certainly been a large factor in near-death encounters.
It heavily favors the stronger of a Lvl imbalance, which is usually the PCs vs 1/2 +PL creatures.
------------------
It does mean that Trip is not the automatic choice most of the time, as if you need to pass a Grapple each and every turn... I think our PCs would be Tripping a whole lot more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Resurrected thread.
Now that I know the rules better, I think it is pretty clear you cannot strike with a two-handed weapon and maintain the requirements for a grapple.
If you let your hand off the person you are grappling, you have released them and the grapple condition has ended. You cannot maintain a grapple without maintaining contact with them requiring a free hand unless your weapon has the grapple trait.
It's really players futzing around to demand otherwise. You release the grapple violating the free hand requirement for a grapple, you break the conditions of a grapple action and thus release the target.
You don't get to maintain a grapple while not having any contact with them while wielding a two-handed weapon.
At the end of the day, any player expecting the designers to have to write in for them that they can't take their hand off the grappled target to regrip their two-handed and swing while gaining the benefits of a grapple is not a player I want to deal with. It would be the last game I'd play with that player.
That is the type of toxic rules-lawyering I want no part of in my RPGs.
To your more recent question: I don't often see grapple and trip used together (many of the penalties are redundant). I do see them individually all the time, however. Provided you meet the conditions of each, using them both is most certainly allowed (but not as part of the same Action).
My players do this frequently to make more difficult the target to Stand (this frequently forces the target to keep to attack with penalties instead of try to Escape and then Stand).
Also Mixed Maneuver allow to make both Grapple and Trip in same activity. It's still requires 2-actions but they are still a single activity.