Coming from other games and editions, it makes intuitive sense to me that a victim of a grapple could escape by teleporting away or being shunted by a forced movement effect. However, in PF2e, I cannot find any specific rules stating that any movement of a grappled party ends the grapple early. Here's what I've got:
Critical Success
Your target is restrained until the end of your next turn unless you move or your target Escapes.Success
Your target is grabbed until the end of your next turn unless you move or your target Escapes.
Both of these only say that the grappler has to move (or perhaps be moved), or the victim has to take the Escape action, or else the Grapple lasts until the end of the grappler's next turn.
You are incapable of movement. You can't use any actions that have the move trait. If you're immobilized by something holding you in place and an external force would move you out of your space, the force must succeed at a check against either the DC of the effect holding you in place or the relevant defense (usually Fortitude DC) of the monster holding you in place.
To me this seems like a repeatable check to bypass an Immobilized effect, akin to a concealment check, rather than something which would end the condition, like a counteract check, since it doesn't mention ending the condition.
Teleportation effects instantaneously move something from one point in space to another. Teleportation does not usually trigger reactions based on movement.
Nothing about ending grapples or immobilized.
Again, coming from other systems, the idea that moving the victim out of "reach" should end a grapple seems intuitive, but a strict reading to me seems that the "until the end of (the grappler's) next turn" does most of this lifting, sort of how sustained spell effects don't end immediately if the caster is incapacitated. Unless I'm missing a rule somewhere, it seems like being teleported away from a grapple would still result in being grabbed/restrained until you escape, the grappler moves (oddly), or the end of the grappler's next turn.
I did some searching, but couldn't find any citations of the missing rule(s) about teleporting or forced relocation breaking grapples.
Huh. Cool.
When looking for it, I also don't see any requirement that the target of Grapple is within your reach in the first place.
So yeah. Teleport away as far as you want. I can still grapple you there.
Alternatively, we could invoke the Ambiguous Rules rule...
Inescapable grasp describes that exact situation, implying that the normal interaction is for a teleport effect normally getting you out of a grapple.
You are still in a position to trigger an attack of opportunity and get disrupted from the kind of character that likes to grapple. Dimension door and most teleport spell/actions except flicker will provoke.
It's helpful for grapple effects that don't come from characters tho like black tentacles.
Inescapable grasp describes that exact situation, implying that the normal interaction is for a teleport effect normally getting you out of a grapple.
You are still in a position to trigger an attack of opportunity and get disrupted from the kind of character that likes to grapple. Dimension door and most teleport spell/actions except flicker will provoke.
It's helpful for grapple effects that don't come from characters tho like black tentacles.
Your grasp has a supernatural quality to it, preventing your foes from easily escaping—with or without magical assistance. If a creature you have grabbed attempts to use a teleportation spell or effect, it must succeed at a DC 15 flat check or the spell fails.
By my reading, it seems to strongly imply that the writer assumed a teleport might break a grapple, but it doesn't outright say that this is the default behavior. Imposing a flat check on a teleport doesn't go as far as to say that this is to prevent the teleport from breaking the grapple, unless you link it up with the first sentence, which people often cite as "flavor text" for a lot of abilities, and then making a small leap that this must mean a teleport ends a grapple immediately.
Conversely, one might say that teleporting away from a grapple and remaining grappled until the end of the grappler's next turn is a way to "escape" the grapple (small "e"), as it's unlikely that they'll be able to sustain a grapple if you teleport away. (Unless, of course, the grapple action has indeterminate range as was pointed out earlier in this thread.)
I think the intent seems to be that maneuvers such as grapples and trips use the actor's "default" or unarmed reach (when not done with a weapon trait), as well as moving away from a grappler's reach ending a grapple immediately, but the rules never explicitly say this as far as I can tell. Unfortunately, the best I can still see are some assumptions providing strong indications of the design intent but never actually codifying that intent in the rules.
Yes, an argument can be made that, by RAW, teleporting out of a grapple doesn't remove the grabbed condition. However, this is clearly absurd and not RAI - though there are some ways of inflicting grabbed that you plausibly couldn't shake by teleporting, like Grasp of the Deep.
I would say it would be patently absurd if the Grapple action didn't have a finite duration already, but since it ends after a round unless another Grapple action is taken, I don't think it's quite so clear-cut. It could be that some relevant text about ending the effect early, a la Snagging Strike, was omitted, but teleporting away from a Grapple doesn't create a clear paradox in my mind, because it will most likely end within the combat round, which is already an abstraction of what's actually happening "in real time" in the game.
Part of the problem with RAI is you never really know what was intended without going to the primary source. Failing a specific rule saying that teleports (or other outside/forced/non-"move" movement) in PF2e can end the Grapple effect early, a note from the writer stating something about their intent would serve a similar purpose, but I haven't come across that yet either in my research.
By my reading, it seems to strongly imply that the writer assumed a teleport might break a grapple, but it doesn't outright say that this is the default behavior. Imposing a flat check on a teleport doesn't go as far as to say that this is to prevent the teleport from breaking the grapple, unless you link it up with the first sentence, which people often cite as "flavor text" for a lot of abilities, and then making a small leap that this must mean a teleport ends a grapple immediately.
Conversely, one might say that teleporting away from a grapple and remaining grappled until the end of the grappler's next turn is a way to "escape" the grapple (small "e"), as it's unlikely that they'll be able to sustain a grapple if you teleport away.
Appealing to first edition is bad form, but I'll still point at the tetori monk feature of the same name, where it duplicates dimensional anchor and the DnD wrestling talent of the same name where it explicitly says if successful the escape fails. From context and precedent we know that feature is trying to oppose supernatual escapes.
Concerning remaining grappled after a teleport effect, there's a question to be considered if you teleport to another place within the grappler's reach. Remaining grappled while out of reach is silly and should be understood as a bug in the rules, no matter how permissible you are.
(Unless, of course, the grapple action has indeterminate range as was pointed out earlier in this thread.)
the trip action also doesnt mention reach in the athletic action description however shove down works with an intended reach
by the way, since the remaster we have this paragraph in the athletics section:Several Athletics actions have the attack trait, meaning that using them more than once in the same turn makes them less accurate. Since these actions use your free hand, you use the traits for your fist attack to determine the multiple attack penalty, so your fist's agile trait applies. Therefore, you take a –4 penalty if the action is your second attack of the turn, or a –8 if it's the third. Some weapon traits allow you to take these actions using a weapon, in which case the penalty might be –5 or –10 if the weapon doesn't have the agile trait. Some characters can get unarmed attacks without the agile trait as well. If it's unclear which penalty to use, the GM makes the call.
which clarifies that you are indeed using your free hand as opposed to just requiring it to take action
I think the intent seems to be that maneuvers such as grapples and trips use the actor's "default" or unarmed reach (when not done with a weapon trait), as well as moving away from a grappler's reach ending a grapple immediately, but the rules never explicitly say this as far as I can tell. Unfortunately, the best I can still see are some assumptions...
There's open wording because the athletic maneuvers are used by a lot of effects from spells or equipment. There are multiple examples with more precise wording where a degree of movement is allowed while grappling such as the net item and the binding coil talisman. One thing is clear: when using a free hand or a weapon/unarmed strike with the grapple trait you are subject to your reach (natural+enhanced by item or ability).
ps: habitual residents of this forum forgive me this going into detail about something easily dismissed but grapple mechanics are my special interest
It would've been so easy to add the reach requirement to Grapple in the remaster, like in lots of other feats and featues, or have the agile maneuvers sidebar not explicitly talk about agile and MAP only, but because they didn't, I still see these as legitimate issues. The rules go out of their way to say two things that will end a Grapple action specifically, but nothing about teleporting or reach.
Also, the Grabbed condition exists separately from the Grapple effect, so I don't think that it's a case where they wanted to leave Grapple open-ended for spells or magic.
That, plus the fact that Grapple "takes care of itself" if the aggressor can't repeat the action on successive rounds, makes it seem like this is a case of implied rules rather than explicit- which is why it'd be nice to get some context from an author. It does seem like sometimes even the authors have different interpretations or expectations of what is actually a rule (see: remastered wounded condition, or the leaping thread currently also up).