So long as they are in a position to grapple themselves, it's totally fine. (Not unknown for weak foes, like zombies, to "gang up" to grapple a single target.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You would use harrying fire, a ranged attack against 15 to add a +2 bonus to the next attack roll against your target, which includes a combat maneuver.
I don't think there's a in melee version of harrying fire though, and aid another is only for skills in starfinder.
Yeah, I love a lot of what Starfinder did with the rules from Pathfinder 1e... just wish certain things were fleshed out more.
That said, letting PCs 'harrying fire' in melee is completely reasonable.
However, since harrying fire provides a circumstance bonus, I'd probably play it by ear allowing multiple bonuses to stack depending on what is happening and why.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You would use harrying fire, a ranged attack against 15 to add a +2 bonus to the next attack roll against your target, which includes a combat maneuver.
I don't think there's a in melee version of harrying fire though, and aid another is only for skills in starfinder.
The melee version of harrying fire is called "flanking."
Nah, you can stack harrying fire.
To be pedantic: a GM can allow you to stack harrying fire, or they could consider multiple people providing harrying fire to be 'essentially the same source' and disallow it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When a character built to grapple can land the grapple more easily than a normal attack, allowing everyone to add a bonus to that does basically mean that solo boss enemies can't exist anymore, because of the pin becoming so reliable. That's something a GM might take into account when deciding whether to let them stack.
Realistcally a solo boss probably should rarely occur I feel like... Unless they're massively massively stronger than anything else around. Just in sheer action economy the battle is so one sided. or, the one enemy has to be so untouchable that it feels rough on the players "wasting turns missing everything" while being wrecked a bit.
Not always true of course. but I feel like there are already a lot of issues preventing a singular target enemy than this situation.
It is a big concern though.
Even if they have mooks, pinning a CR+4 with ease is still a bad thing to allow as a GM.
Realistcally a solo boss probably should rarely occur I feel like... Unless they're massively massively stronger than anything else around. Just in sheer action economy the battle is so one sided. or, the one enemy has to be so untouchable that it feels rough on the players "wasting turns missing everything" while being wrecked a bit.
Not always true of course. but I feel like there are already a lot of issues preventing a singular target enemy than this situation.
It is a big concern though.
The solo boss could have some massive area of effect damage or a teleport/travel through wall/floor defensive reaction. The GM may just have to limit stacking to +4 or +6.
That's basically the whole party anyway...
Besides, without convincing the GM of anything, a player can already benefit from flanking and harrying fire. +4 is already enough to make the grapple basically assured, and a pin common. No need to let harrying fire stack.