While all elves are immune to the paralyzing touch of ghouls, you can shake off flesh-numbing magic of all kinds. You gain a +1 circumstance bonus to saves against effects that would impose the immobilized, paralyzed, or slowed conditions. When you would be immobilized, paralyzed, or slowed for at least 2 rounds, reduce that duration by 1 round.
Grapple imposes the Grabbed condition or the Restrained condition, both of which incorporate the Immobilized condition, upon a (crit) failed save. Wouldn't then technically Grapple & similar abilities be subject to this effect as well? Thus the DC to grapple an Elf with Elven Verve should be +1 higher than usual, right?
I've checked whether a bonus to a save only applies to you rolling the save, but according to the rules the save DC does include all modifiers from the save.
Am I mistaken or does Elven Verve really work against every effect that imposes the Immobilized condition, even if that condition is just part of another condition? Or would it only work on things like Entangling Flora which directly impose that condition?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say Elven Verve would only apply to things that apply the listed condition specifically.
Grapple does not inflice Immobilized, it inflicts either Grabbed or Restrained, so Verve doesn't apply.
That said, your point about Save DC is correct, so if an effect would impose Immobilised, Paralyzed or Slowed on you and it's rolling against one of your DCs, it would apply.
Post-remaster do ghouls even have a paralyzing touch?
Grapple imposes Grabbed or Restrained. Not Immobilized.
Does not work (both RAW and pretty obvious RAI).
RAW both Grabbed and Restrained impose the Immobilized condition.
And from where do you get that it is "pretty obvious RAI"? Is there a developer quote somewhere you can share with us?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't immobilize you it just makes you immobilized is a fun bit of language gymnastics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because grabbing is not 'flesh-numbing magic'.
It is if you are doing it right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW both Grabbed and Restrained impose the Immobilized condition.Grapple imposes Grabbed or Restrained. Not Immobilized.
Does not work (both RAW and pretty obvious RAI).
To restate the argument more formally:
Elven Verve gives a bonus to effects that impose the immobilized, paralyzed, and slowed conditions.
The Grapple action or Grab monster ability impose the grabbed or restrained conditions. Elven Verve doesn't apply to grabbed or restrained so therefore doesn't apply to the Grapple action.
The Grabbed and Restrained conditions themselves apply the Immobilized condition, but it does so without allowing a second save or check. So while Elven Verve would apply to immobilized, the effect causing it does not involve any rolls, so the bonus is not usable.
-----
Another way to think of it RAI - it is like the Subordinate Actions rule. If an ability protects against a condition, it is looking for that condition being applied specifically, not as a consequence of a different condition.
Nesting conditions is meant as a space saving measure for printing the rulebooks, not as a type hierarchy.
The Grapple action or Grab monster ability impose the grabbed or restrained conditions. Elven Verve doesn't apply to grabbed or restrained so therefore doesn't apply to the Grapple action.
What would happen if you were to (crit) succeed on the grapple of a creature that is immune to being immobilized?
Another way to think of it RAI - it is like the Subordinate Actions rule.
That's kind of a bad example though, because things that modify the base action still work if the action is subordinate. You can't bypass a penalty to Strikes by using Power Attack, nor does it disable Rage's damage bonus.
a bonus vs grapple would not apply vs the strikes both post and pre remaster when a monster with the grab ability strikes you.
an Hypothetically if you had an ability to do a feint and on a crit you could make a strike you would not apply your strike bonuses on the feint check.
its a smal destinction but i agree with Thefinish and Finoan
Can you give us an example of such a creature?The Grapple action or Grab monster ability impose the grabbed or restrained conditions. Elven Verve doesn't apply to grabbed or restrained so therefore doesn't apply to the Grapple action.What would happen if you were to (crit) succeed on the grapple of a creature that is immune to being immobilized?
Sure: Tolokand
Interesting arguement. The "effect" (grapple) is clearly the thing that imposed the immobilized condition. The grabbed condition itself is not an effect, and so I say this arguement works. Though I do agree its clearly not the way the flavor text was written, but they didn't specify that its only magical effects you are resistant to.
Imagine someone having "+1 circumstance bonus to the Saves and the AC vs Spells" which is an ability that you can find in some creatures already.
The creature wouldn't get that benefit to its AC vs a magus spellstriking it, "even though the Strike would trigger a Spell". The magus isn's doing a spell attack, he's using his Strike to automatically deliver said spell.
... Because the spell automatically succeeds. You never gain bonuses to defenses against things that automatically succeed. That's not really relevant here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No it isn't, because Immobilize isn't an action and it's still conditional on a check.
I'm not even saying the final conclusion is necessarily wrong, but these examples are very irrelevant.
I also don't see how these Strike examples play any role here.
Let me again post the text of Elven Verve:
effects that would impose the immobilized, paralyzed, or slowed conditions
I don't think there's any doubt about the following: After being successfully grappled, the Elf would end up with the immobilized condition, even if just as part of Grabbed/Restrained.
The question seems to be only whether a Grapple would impose the immobilized condition. So does "impose" require something to be direct in name or just in effect?
Now, I also think statements such as these are misleading:
Grapple does not inflice Immobilized, it inflicts either Grabbed or Restrained
It just replaces one word ("impose") with another similar word ("inflict") without addressing the issue itself.