| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Am I missing any official rules regarding this?
I don't think so. At least, if you are missing something, then so am I.
Running it as a precise sense with 0 range makes sense.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I were to make a blanket rule, I'd have it be imprecise. I wrestled and there'd have been drawbacks if I couldn't have seen, even while grappling. And if you do land a grab, maintaining it doesn't have a miss chance. But not knowing which way your opponent has positioned their free limbs means you might be clasping at air. And unless you have the opponent Restrained, even simple punching/Strikes would be hindered, so 20% miss chance seems about right.
I witnessed a blind wrestler, and he was quite competent, but also had a lifetime to compensate. Still at a disadvantage in many positions.
That said, how precise touch is depends on task, time, and the scope of what one's sensing. But needing to adjudicate each instance might get cumbersome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I consider it a Precise Sense.
The reason are spells like Magic Weapon that target your own equipment. If you are Blinded or can't just see your own sword (if you are invisible or in the dark) then you'd need a flat check to cast Magic Weapon on it. That seems utterly ridiculous (and clearly no one would apply the rules in that case). Which make me think that Touch is a Precise Sense.
Now, I'd only consider what you touch. Like if you are grappling a creature, you can only attack what you grapple/what grapples you. If for example it's a Hydra grappling you with their head, then you can just attack the head (if you want to avoid the flat check).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I consider it a Precise Sense.
The reason are spells like Magic Weapon that target your own equipment. If you are Blinded or can't just see your own sword (if you are invisible or in the dark) then you'd need a flat check to cast Magic Weapon on it. That seems utterly ridiculous (and clearly no one would apply the rules in that case). Which make me think that Touch is a Precise Sense.
Now, I'd only consider what you touch. Like if you are grappling a creature, you can only attack what you grapple/what grapples you. If for example it's a Hydra grappling you with their head, then you can just attack the head (if you want to avoid the flat check).
Indeed. While writing my post above, I realized there were likely some game effects that required the sense of touch to be Precise for things to make sense. My opinion was definitely not taking those into account.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I consider it Precise Sense for the purposes of yourself and your own equipment (on your person) which you obviously know very well, and an Imprecise Sense for everyone and everything else around you.
A blinded PC who's lost their sense of touch would still be able to target their own equipment, and I'd say without penalty. That's the nature of such spells. If one accepts that premise, then touch is irrelevant in that example.
And I probably would have a miss chance if a blinded PC wanted to target their ally's weapon, even if that creature were within touch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To encode that in game terms, precise sense with 0 range. Not your normal character's reach - which is usually 5 foot range. 0 range.
So you have precise sense pretty much only for anything that is in your space. And likely for enemies that you are grappling or who are grappling you.
A blinded PC who's lost their sense of touch would still be able to target their own equipment, and I'd say without penalty.
Losing the sense of touch must be an extremely unsettling feeling.
I don't think it's possible to lose the sense of touch in the game, but I'd definitely ask for a flat check to target your own equipment if you lose it while being Blinded. Without touch, you have no idea if you are touching your armor or not, or still holding your sword or not.
To encode that in game terms, precise sense with 0 range. Not your normal character's reach - which is usually 5 foot range. 0 range.
So you have precise sense pretty much only for anything that is in your space. And likely for enemies that you are grappling or who are grappling you.
For the reasons Castilliano mentioned, I would not count it as a precise sense for grapplers and creatures in your space, personally.
I agree it should be an imprecise sense. Compare it to hearing. You can locate an invisible creature by seeking using only hearing (imprecise) but you still have a miss chance to hit them in their square.
Having a creature grabbed I would say is the equivalent of succeeding at a seek action to locate them. As Castilliano stated above, just because you know what square they are in, doesn't mean you know where their other hand is, or the angle they are holding their body, etc. For an area spell or one that doesn't require an attack roll, you can target them b/c they are still hidden from you, but not undetected.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note that targeting a concealed, hidden, or Undetected creature works the same whether there's an attack roll or not. The miss chance determines whether you can set the effect precisely enough to affect them.
Did the fighter have Blind-Fight? If not, then they should have been fighting a hidden opponent.
The argument that having an arm on someone would keep their current position and orientation relative to the fighter "known" isn't supported by the rules as far as I can tell, or reality in my opinion. Position is relative and abstracted too far in a game like Pathfinder for that to be reasonable.
Touch is not a good sense in real life for determining an opponents disposition. Sure, you could maybe get your hands on something of theirs, but you won't have enough information to know what they are doing with parts of their body that you aren't currently touching.
Try wrestling a friend both with and without your eyes open. How much worse did you do blind?
So last session our fighter got blinded while grappling, and we weren't sure what the rules were regarding the sense of touch.
On the one hand, being blinded, enemies are hidden to you. On the other hand, if you are grappling a creature, don't you kind of know precisely where it is?
I couldn't find mention of the sense of touch, except for the construct companion (https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1610), with it having specifically a vague touch sense.
Am I missing any official rules regarding this?
In general this isn't a problem with the character is still able to ear once that by default for most creatures sounds are imprecise sense and unless the target is also sneaking the blinded character know its location (square) but will be difficult to hit it with precise actions like attacks.
If a character is also Deafened is where the GM needs to house rule because the character lost its precise and imprecise sense and now all creatures are Undetected to it. In this special case I would allow this character to use Seek in a cone equal to its reach (including reach weapons once they could be used like blind man's stick). If theres a creature in once of the squares of cone AoE it will automatically be hidden against it instead of undetected or if this creature is activelly trying to hide/sneak against it, it will to roll a perception check vs the creature stealth DC in order to see if it will find it or not.
And if you do land a grab, maintaining it doesn't have a miss chance.Is there a citation for that? I’ve always required a flat check in that situation, and I’m wondering if I’ve been doing it wrong.
Interesting. Has that arisen often at your tables?
I suppose we're imagining the situation different. It's difficult for me to imagine holding someone (perhaps even in a full nelson/Restrained or heck, a Storm Giant's fist engulfing a small dog), and then losing hold half the time because you're blinded (w/ or w/o them trying to Escape mind you).
Yet technically maintaining a grapple (for those using Athletics) is an Attack so if blinded there'd be a whopping 50% miss chance even when they're in your grasp. Of course, the 50% is because touch has no special designation, the point of discussion.
If one had Trash/Collateral Thrash (Barbarian), you could exert more control over the foe and w/o the miss chance. Furious Grab also avoids this miss chance (though could be read elsewise I suppose), as would Constrict (like an Eidelon or monster might do), and those seem more extreme & Attack-like than maintaining.
Anyway, yep, we're in adjudication territory if wanting more verisimilitude here than RAW provides. Tables will vary, which I don't mind as long as there's (consistent) reasoning behind it.
|
|
Interesting. Has that arisen often at your tables?And if you do land a grab, maintaining it doesn't have a miss chance.Is there a citation for that? I’ve always required a flat check in that situation, and I’m wondering if I’ve been doing it wrong.
Sort of. We played through all of Agents of Edgewatch and we’re currently in book six of Strength of Thousands, and in both cases there was a PC who had Legendary Sneak, and monsters who grab or grapple aren’t all that uncommon. So it’s not so much Blinded while grappling as it is grappling a Hidden opponent, but for practical purposes it’s me basic idea.
Actually, though both PCs also had Foil Senses, so a successful stealth roll arguably means the grappling monster can’t even feel the PC with its sense of touch.
Yet technically maintaining a grapple (for those using Athletics) is an Attack so if blinded there'd be a whopping 50% miss chance even when they're in your grasp.
Right, but it sounded like you were aware of a rule that stated otherwise.
Tables will vary, which I don't mind as long as there's (consistent) reasoning behind it.
Since requiring the flat check tends to benefit the PCs, who rarely do much grappling at my table, that’s my inclination. But barring weirdness like Foil Senses, there’s a colorable argument for dropping it when someone is already grabbed.
the PCs, who rarely do much grappling at my table,
My Nagaji Gymnast Swashbuckler is glaring at you.
|
|
My Nagaji Gymnast Swashbuckler is glaring at you.
Off the top of my head I’ve had one PC who focused on grappling, in an uncompelted run of Fists of the Ruby Phoenix. He used that feat (can’t recall the name) that lets you throw people you’ve grabbed. But I don’t recall him ever grabbing an invisible or hidden foe.
I've only had opportunity to use Shove once. But Grapple/Trip is used pretty much constantly because that is my most valuable way of gaining Panache.
We haven't encountered anything that was invisible though, so this particular rules interaction hasn't come up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually think the flat check benefits the monsters since it's PCs who default to Athletics, adding the Attack trait to maintaining a grapple.
Most monsters who grapple have Grab, which lacks the trait, as does Constrict. They can maintain easily enough, though this relies on one's outlook on "other effect" re: Hidden & whether the monster is targeting or merely flexing some muscles.
I suppose how often one grabs invisible/hidden foes depends greatly on how many pure spellcasters one faces. :-)
(A lot of PF2 NPC casters are significant martial threats, perhaps because of how easily PF1 ones could be shut down. And Silence, etc.)
---
Foil Senses is a great big bag of crazy given its breadth. No touch opens up a can of worms re: interactions, though I suppose interacting could be interpreted as intentionally breaking Stealth.
I guess the monster would let go, thinking their hands (et al) were empty, though maybe they'd naturally Seek first, but even losing that action costs a lot for significant enemies.
If I think a bug escaped my hand, I still throw to make sure. Who knows how different monsters might react. :-)
If I were to make a blanket rule, I'd have it be imprecise. I wrestled and there'd have been drawbacks if I couldn't have seen, even while grappling. And if you do land a grab, maintaining it doesn't have a miss chance. But not knowing which way your opponent has positioned their free limbs means you might be clasping at air. And unless you have the opponent Restrained, even simple punching/Strikes would be hindered, so 20% miss chance seems about right.
I witnessed a blind wrestler, and he was quite competent, but also had a lifetime to compensate. Still at a disadvantage in many positions.That said, how precise touch is depends on task, time, and the scope of what one's sensing. But needing to adjudicate each instance might get cumbersome.
Agreed 100%. I wrestled in high school and it's not unusual to end up with your face buried in a body part blocking sight. And yeah, when they happens you just have to grasp around to find something to get ahold of. Like sure, you know where they are because you're in contact with them, but trying to grab a specific part or hit them in a specific area would be challenging. I agree with imprecise and miss chance, with the exception that as long as you remain in contact with them you know where they are 5ft square). If that's even an exception.
Agreed 100%. I wrestled in high school and it's not unusual to end up with your face buried in a body part blocking sight. And yeah, when they happens you just have to grasp around to find something to get ahold of. Like sure, you know where they are because you're in contact with them, but trying to grab a specific part or hit them in a specific area would be challenging. I agree with imprecise and miss chance, with the exception that as long as you remain in contact with them you know where they are 5ft square). If that's even an exception.
They allow hitting in high school wrestling?
|
|
Most monsters who grapple have Grab, which lacks the trait, as does Constrict. They can maintain easily enough,
That's a good point. I think I may have overlooked the bit in the Grab description that allows its Requirement to be met when it "has a creature grabbed using this action."
Foil Senses is a great big bag of crazy given its breadth. No touch opens up a can of worms re: interactions,
It really is a wild ability.
though I suppose interacting could be interpreted as intentionally breaking Stealth.
I would probably make that ruling, because my stealthy PCs tend to be effectively invisible most of the time, and it's about the only chance my monsters have to even see them.
I guess the monster would let go, thinking their hands (et al) were empty, though maybe they'd naturally Seek first, but even losing that action costs a lot for significant enemies.
If I think a bug escaped my hand, I still throw to make sure. Who knows how different monsters might react. :-)
The question whether the monster could even feel that it was holding a Hidden character with Foil Senses honestly hadn't even occurred to me until I brought it up in this thread. I had never even considered it in play. If it comes up again, I'll have to give it some serious thought.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed 100%. I wrestled in high school and it's not unusual to end up with your face buried in a body part blocking sight. And yeah, when they happens you just have to grasp around to find something to get ahold of. Like sure, you know where they are because you're in contact with them, but trying to grab a specific part or hit them in a specific area would be challenging. I agree with imprecise and miss chance, with the exception that as long as you remain in contact with them you know where they are 5ft square). If that's even an exception.
But were you able to touch your opponent?
Because a spell like Vampiric Touch only asks for touching and if you are wrestling someone and getting a hold on them I hardly see why you'd need a flat check to touch them.That's why I think it's important to make a distinction between what's in direct contact with you and what's not. If you only need to touch the enemy then there shouldn't be a miss chance as you already touch them. But if you want to hit something you are not touching (mostly because you don't want to strike your own hand), then there's a miss chance.
Agreed 100%. I wrestled in high school and it's not unusual to end up with your face buried in a body part blocking sight. And yeah, when they happens you just have to grasp around to find something to get ahold of. Like sure, you know where they are because you're in contact with them, but trying to grab a specific part or hit them in a specific area would be challenging. I agree with imprecise and miss chance, with the exception that as long as you remain in contact with them you know where they are 5ft square). If that's even an exception.They allow hitting in high school wrestling?
I mean, no it's not allowed. But it can be hard to tell if you're trying to get a hand in/around an opponents body and trying to throw a punch. Punches were more obvious than biting, hair pulling, scratching, or other underhanded things so it's a lot less likely. But based on legitimately trying to just grab an opponent's arm, I feel like I'd have a hard time punching very successfully either. Cause it's not just about connecting any place on their body, but connecting with something that will hurt. You also can't exactly reel back and punch or rotate your body through to carry momentum. So your punches will have a lot less force.
|
I would allow no flat check on a case by case basis.
"Grabbing" a creature just means you have hold of their arm, or part of their gear, it's not like you have them in a choke-hold. The majority of their body would not be grabbed, so it's fair to say trying to punch a creature you're grabbing while being blinded would still have the standard penalty. Casting a touch spell while you are touching them would have no penalty though. And if you have them restrained I would say no penalty, because you likely do have them in something similar to a choke-hold.
Yeah, restrained is a bit different. You've got a greater degree of control over their body at that point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only the original target of silence has to be willing. The effect affects sound in the area at level 4 not specific targets.
All those monster abilities are changing in the remastery to require rolls. I am willing to bet that means those actions will pick up the attack trait. There are a lot of rules clarification questions and conversations hovering with a giant asterisk over them right now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed 100%. I wrestled in high school and it's not unusual to end up with your face buried in a body part blocking sight. And yeah, when they happens you just have to grasp around to find something to get ahold of. Like sure, you know where they are because you're in contact with them, but trying to grab a specific part or hit them in a specific area would be challenging. I agree with imprecise and miss chance, with the exception that as long as you remain in contact with them you know where they are 5ft square). If that's even an exception.But were you able to touch your opponent?
Because a spell like Vampiric Touch only asks for touching and if you are wrestling someone and getting a hold on them I hardly see why you'd need a flat check to touch them.That's why I think it's important to make a distinction between what's in direct contact with you and what's not. If you only need to touch the enemy then there shouldn't be a miss chance as you already touch them. But if you want to hit something you are not touching (mostly because you don't want to strike your own hand), then there's a miss chance.
I would agree with that. But let me make a slightly different statement. You have the miss chance. But if what you're doing only requires touch, you're already touching them, the condition has been met. In this case there honestly shouldn't even be an attack roll required. But I think this is one of the points where the game starts to break apart when analyzed too closely.
I mean, no it's not allowed. But it can be hard to tell if you're trying to get a hand in/around an opponents body and trying to throw a punch. Punches were more obvious than biting, hair pulling, scratching, or other underhanded things so it's a lot less likely. But based on legitimately trying to just grab an opponent's arm, I feel like I'd have a hard time punching very successfully either. Cause it's not just about connecting any place on their body, but connecting with something that will hurt. You also can't exactly reel back and punch or rotate your body through to carry momentum. So your punches will have a lot less force.Agreed 100%. I wrestled in high school and it's not unusual to end up with your face buried in a body part blocking sight. And yeah, when they happens you just have to grasp around to find something to get ahold of. Like sure, you know where they are because you're in contact with them, but trying to grab a specific part or hit them in a specific area would be challenging. I agree with imprecise and miss chance, with the exception that as long as you remain in contact with them you know where they are 5ft square). If that's even an exception.They allow hitting in high school wrestling?
Also important is that you added "...would be...", not "was", as in a hypothetical, not a retelling.
Also important is that you added "...would be...", not "was", as in a hypothetical, not a retelling.I mean, no it's not allowed. But it can be hard to tell if you're trying to get a hand in/around an opponents body and trying to throw a punch. Punches were more obvious than biting, hair pulling, scratching, or other underhanded things so it's a lot less likely. But based on legitimately trying to just grab an opponent's arm, I feel like I'd have a hard time punching very successfully either. Cause it's not just about connecting any place on their body, but connecting with something that will hurt. You also can't exactly reel back and punch or rotate your body through to carry momentum. So your punches will have a lot less force.Agreed 100%. I wrestled in high school and it's not unusual to end up with your face buried in a body part blocking sight. And yeah, when they happens you just have to grasp around to find something to get ahold of. Like sure, you know where they are because you're in contact with them, but trying to grab a specific part or hit them in a specific area would be challenging. I agree with imprecise and miss chance, with the exception that as long as you remain in contact with them you know where they are 5ft square). If that's even an exception.They allow hitting in high school wrestling?
I think you're reading more into my words than I meant.
I didn't punch anyone while wrestling, but I definitely grabbed at people. Trying to grab someone around the waist instead of around the shoulder, or traying to grab their wrist instead of their hand or bicep isn't easy when you're clenched up against someone.
Of course, what I'm describing is also more than a "grapple" but less than "restrained" because this is possible without either person really having control of the other, but it's not just one person standing holding the other person's wrist. So depending on how one person thinks of grappling it might not match with another person's ideas. Pathfinder's version of grapple seems to tend toward you have a one handed grasp on them but aren't really clenched up against one another.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also important is that you added "...would be...", not "was", as in a hypothetical, not a retelling.I mean, no it's not allowed. But it can be hard to tell if you're trying to get a hand in/around an opponents body and trying to throw a punch. Punches were more obvious than biting, hair pulling, scratching, or other underhanded things so it's a lot less likely. But based on legitimately trying to just grab an opponent's arm, I feel like I'd have a hard time punching very successfully either. Cause it's not just about connecting any place on their body, but connecting with something that will hurt. You also can't exactly reel back and punch or rotate your body through to carry momentum. So your punches will have a lot less force.Agreed 100%. I wrestled in high school and it's not unusual to end up with your face buried in a body part blocking sight. And yeah, when they happens you just have to grasp around to find something to get ahold of. Like sure, you know where they are because you're in contact with them, but trying to grab a specific part or hit them in a specific area would be challenging. I agree with imprecise and miss chance, with the exception that as long as you remain in contact with them you know where they are 5ft square). If that's even an exception.They allow hitting in high school wrestling?I think you're reading more into my words than I meant.
I didn't punch anyone while wrestling, but I definitely grabbed at people. Trying to grab someone around the waist instead of around the shoulder, or traying to grab their wrist instead of their hand or bicep isn't easy when you're clenched up against someone.
Of course, what I'm describing is also more than a "grapple" but less than "restrained" because this is possible without either person really having control of the other, but it's not just one person standing holding the other person's wrist. So depending on...
I was supporting you, as your words never did say punching occurred, only that it'd be difficult if attempted. :-P
And yeah, having also wrestled, I find PF2 inadequate for a martial arts RPG, but it's not built to emulate MMA so it's fine much like hit points are abstract. Of course this leads to multiple interpretations of the same broad concept of "engaged in grappling enough to hamper them".
So much better than the 3.X flow chart though! Give me the simpler, less combat-dominating PF2 version.
I was supporting you, as your words never did say punching occurred, only that it'd be difficult if attempted. :-P
And yeah, having also wrestled, I find PF2 inadequate for a martial arts RPG, but it's not built to emulate MMA so it's fine much like hit points are abstract. Of course this leads to multiple interpretations of the same broad concept of "engaged in grappling enough to hamper them".
So much better than the 3.X flow chart though! Give me the simpler, less combat-dominating PF2 version.
Sorry in my response seemed odd, I wasn't sure exactly what you had meant.
But I agree, PFR2 combat is an abstraction. Getting into the intricacies of real life fighting, even something as specific as real grappling quickly moves you to a point where a lot of the rules wouldn't make sense.
Anyways, I'd rule touch a generally an imprecise sense, but if you had something that only required touching I'd rule you wouldn't take the penalty for concealed. We lost the difference between touch attacks and regular attacks in the edition change, and this is one of the corner cases where it doesn't make a lot of sense.
|
|
So even with Legendary Sneak and Foil Senses, a creature might be able to Hide in the palm of the giant's hand (or while Grabbed by anything or anyone else) but would not be able to become Undetected until they could Sneak, a MOVE action
That’s a good point. We’re probably exaggerating the situation when we act like the giant wouldn’t have a pretty good idea that the Hidden PC is still in their hand. It wouldn’t be unreasonable for the giant to go ahead and attack into the square where he’s holding the PC, though I’d still make a flat check.
This leads me to this question for the crowd. How would you adjudicate Seek with the sense of touch?
It isn’t my understanding that when one Seeks one has to specify a particular sense. So I’d just use the normal rules and maybe handle (heh) the question narratively in the results.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
”Pathfinder’s rules assume that a given creature has vision as its only precise sense and hearing as its only imprecise sense.” So vague sense at best :(
I doubt the designers were considering touch a sense at this point in writing the CRB and it’s certainly problematic in other areas to run it like this.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
”Pathfinder’s rules assume that a given creature has vision as its only precise sense and hearing as its only imprecise sense.” So vague sense at best :(
I doubt the designers were considering touch a sense at this point in writing the CRB and it’s certainly problematic in other areas to run it like this.
I read it as meaning anything that specifies vision can be applied to any precise sense and anything that specifies hearing can be applied to any imprecise sense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
”Pathfinder’s rules assume that a given creature has vision as its only precise sense and hearing as its only imprecise sense.” So vague sense at best :(
I doubt the designers were considering touch a sense at this point in writing the CRB and it’s certainly problematic in other areas to run it like this.
We are speaking of a very specific case. There are many such cases that are not covered by the rules, they are not meant to cover absolutely everything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have been down this road before you and I SB. And it appears that we are still at an impasse on the subject.
But to summarize the linked post, the question was could a grappling creature ignore Mirror Image due to having a physical hand on an opponent while Mirror Image is in effect.
Your position on the subject is that in this circumstance Touch would be a precise sense, and you additionally would allow a character to close their eyes to make them essentially immune to visual effects, like Mirror Image while benefitting from having a Precise sense of your grappled opponent.
My position on the subject is that touch being a precise sense is not a base line assumption of the system, and requires the GM to fully decide how relying on it in combat works. Touch is un-labeled where senses are concerned by the CRB and, in my opinion, ends up being relegated to the only category of senses that is used as a catch-all for non-specific senses, Vague Senses.
If touch is a vague sense, then you gain little benefit for using it as your primary sense to detect a creature.
At best, a vague sense can be used to detect the presence of an unnoticed creature, making it undetected. Even then, the vague sense isn’t sufficient to make the creature hidden or observed.
At best a creature you have grappled, while you are deprived of all other senses, should be undetected. Saying otherwise is, in my opinion, a house rule, and should be looked at carefully to ensure that it doesn't have any unintended consequences when applied to other situations.
In the OP's situation, with a blinded fighter, the fighter still has their sense of hearing as an imprecise sense, so would treat their grappled opponent as hidden instead, barring any other ability in play that can mess with that detection.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Saying otherwise is, in my opinion, a house rule, and should be looked at carefully to ensure that it doesn't have any unintended consequences when applied to other situations.
I fully agree. It's definitely a house rule and it's better if it can't be exploited. I think it can't really be exploited as it's an extremely niche case, you need to be deprived of vision while grappling a creature. Now, as for all house rules, it's not part of the game and is a question of GM adjudication.
Now, I think it's a house rule a lot of GMs use when they don't ask for a flat check to target one's own equipment while Blinded. Per strict application of the rules, Drawing a sword while Blinded asks for a flat check, I don't think anyone does that.
So it's a bit more than a house rule. It's an attempt at formulating a rule to support a common practice.
If one had Trash/Collateral Thrash (Barbarian), you could exert more control over the foe and w/o the miss chance. Furious Grab also avoids this miss chance (though could be read elsewise I suppose), as would Constrict (like an Eidelon or monster might do), and those seem more extreme & Attack-like than maintaining.Funnily enough, my GM ruled in a session earlier today that I'd have to make a flat check to Thrash an invisible creature I had restrained, much to the disagreement of the table. I plan on bringing up that ruling next time an invisible PC gets Constricted, Engulfed, or Grabbed.
While I agree with you that it seems very silly, your GM was sadly going by RAW. Concealed is explicitly called out as an entirely separate effect from your status as Observed/Hidden/Undetected/Unnoticed. Unless you can ignore the creature's Concealed condition, you must make the flat check to target it with any ability. Yes, even if it's restrained. Or you've swallowed it. Silly as it sounds.
As for the OP, the Core Rulebook says, when talking about Precise senses:
"Average vision is a precise sense—a sense that can beused to perceive the world in nuanced detail."
And then, for Imprecise:
"Hearing is an imprecise sense—it cannot detect the full range of detail that a precise sense can." (emphasis mine)
While Vague senses state:
"A character also has many vague senses—ones that can alert you that something is there but aren’t useful for zeroing in on it to determine exactly what it is." (emphasis, again, mine)
So, with these descriptions, Touch is an imprecise sense. It can certainly be useful for zeroing in on something to determine where or what they are, but it can't give you the full range of detail sight can.
If you're fighting something invisible that stunk, your vague smell could tell you the general vecinity. If you swept your arm around and hit it, you'd know exactly where it is, but not what weapons it's holding (if any), it's size, color, armor, etc. To me that means Imprecise.
That being said, it'd be nice to have a sidebar that said something like "Unless noted on a creature's statblock, X is a Precise Sense, Y is Imprecise, Z is vague." for Sight/Sound/Smell/Taste/Touch
Except Thrash doesn't target, so not RAW IMO.
If you know you're holding something, you can Thrash it around. One might say that implies targeting, but that's RAI (the implied version of RAI, not necessarily the intended version).
Sadly, whether one knows they're holding something circles back to Foil Senses re: touch...
This is adjudication territory IMO, and were rigorous rules laid out, they'd likely become too exploitable and/or fall apart given all the size, limbs, and other physiological/magical variance.
Except Thrash doesn't target, so not RAW IMO.
If you know you're holding something, you can Thrash it around. One might say that implies targeting, but that's RAI (the implied version of RAI, not necessarily the intended version).
Sadly, whether one knows they're holding something circles back to Foil Senses re: touch...This is adjudication territory IMO, and were rigorous rules laid out, they'd likely become too exploitable and/or fall apart given all the size, limbs, and other physiological/magical variance.
Thrash does target. Everything targets in PF2.