Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Egres 03-22-05, 04:05 PM	It seems that Skip really loves his house rules. This week he tries once again to pass one of them as RAW. If multiple opponents are involved in the grapple, you pick one to make the opposed grapple check against. In this case, you don't have to randomly determine which foe your grab attack strikes (see Part One). For the last time: the following part is taken directly from the SRD, and it clearly contradicts Skip's words. Table: Armor Class Modifiers Defender is . . . ....................Melee.....Ranged Grappling (but attacker is not) +01 +0 1,3 3 Roll randomly to see which grappling combatant you strike. That defender loses any Dexterity bonus to AC.
ManinBlaq 03-22-05, 08:46 PM	I'm not quite following you on this one Egres. Your summation of Skip's article seems to revolve around a melee attack, if an additional character is attempting to grapple someone already involved in a grapple. The RAW excerpt on the other hand, is specifically ranged attacks. There's no chance to randomly hit someone in a grapple from a melee attack, only ranged.
quintus 03-22-05, 09:01 PM	It seems that Skip really loves his house rules. This week he tries once again to pass one of them as RAW. There's no contradiction here at all. When you fire a *ranged* attack into a grapple situation, you roll to randomly determine who the attack strikes. That's what your SRD quote (clearly) refers to. Skip is talking about situations where you have multiple people all grappling eachother (picture a rugby scrum). Each one of those people, each of those people can *choose* who they want to be grappling with. In general, I haven't noticed any of Skip's rules columns directly contradicting RAW. Most of the time he's clearing up gray areas and special cases. Occasionally, these cases are hinted at in the SRDs, but he fleshes them out.
derfenrirwolv 03-22-05, 10:56 PM	A couple of things seem to come out of nowhere.. like monsters using their natural attacks instead of BAB to grapple or something with improved grab being able to just walk off at full movement with someone in their mouth, no opposed grapple check required. that is directly against the RAW, which let you move the grapple at half speed with an opposed check.
Gruffmug 03-23-05, 12:10 AM	Is there any more info on the use of the pincer staff (underdark and MM) that the kao taons use to grapple at reach? Are there special rules for this weapon. Can a PC who is grappled with the staff attemp a counter grapple even though he can't reach the person grappling him? Can the wielder of the picer staff move? Do the various feats that improve grappling effect the use of the pincer staff? Does the pincer need a touch attack or melee attack to do it's listed damage and what if it is enchanted with an elemental or damaging property like wounding? A few grappling related questions Gruffmug
TrustTymora 03-23-05, 01:10 AM	A couple of things seem to come out of nowhere.. like monsters using their natural attacks instead of BAB to grapple or something with improved grab being able to just walk off at full movement with someone in their mouth, no opposed grapple check required. that is directly against the RAW, which let you move the grapple at half speed with an opposed check. I think neither of these have come out of nowhere. Monsters that use natural attacks always determine the number of attacks based on monster description and NEVER on BaB. The article attempts to clear it up because the PHB was written from a non-monster player character perspective. The monster being able to walk off at full movement with someone in their mouth, no opposed grapple check is also specified by such creatures as the "ankheg" so precedence is already there not just pulled out of thin air! TT
derfenrirwolv 03-23-05, 01:34 AM	I think neither of these have come out of nowhere. Monsters that use natural attacks always determine the number of attacks based on monster description and NEVER on BaB. I'll assume that under the rake entry where it says a monster can usualy only use one natural attack in a grapple is a mistake then. The article attempts to clear it up because the PHB was written from a non-monster player character perspective. The monster being able to walk off at full movement with someone in their mouth, no opposed grapple check is also specified by such creatures as the "ankheg" so precedence is already there not just pulled out of thin air derf: as something for specific monsters yes, however giving the pouncing claw claw bite rake rakeing felines another trick (carrying you away from help on their initiative) seems overdone. In the appendix it says this is the case but not under most monster descriptions. I don't know whether this means that those monsters without it listed simply can't exercise that option of improved grab
TrustTymora 03-23-05, 02:13 AM	I'll assume that under the rake entry where it says a monster can usualy only use one natural attack in a grapple is a mistake then. I would, and have for a long time now. When search is up and running do a search for "Grappling Monters" (I think) and you will get a long thread that occurred about 18 months ago. You will see my position then and it hasn't really changed since. derf: as something for specific monsters yes, however giving the pouncing claw claw bite rake rakeing felines another trick (carrying you away from help on their initiative) seems overdone. In the appendix it says this is the case but not under most monster descriptions. I don't know whether this means that those monsters without it listed simply can't exercise that option of improved grab I would just play all monsters with Imp Grab can move with grappled opponents assuming they are strong enough. But in the end you have to use the DnD system in a way that works for you and your players. If you feel that it is too powerful then just don't use monsters that way. TT
Egres 03-23-05, 04:30 AM	I'm not quite following you on this one Egres. Your summation of Skip's article seems to revolve around a melee attack, if an additional character is attempting to grapple someone already involved in a grapple. The RAW excerpt on the other hand, is specifically ranged attacks. There's no chance to randomly hit someone in a grapple from a melee attack, only ranged. ?!? I was underlining Skip's mistake about the fact that you don't have to roll randomly in order to enter a Grapple. Wasn't it clear? Just in case my English isn't good enough, I'm going to explain my point in a better way. The RAW state that you don't need to roll randomly in order to make a melee attack against a grappling opponent. An attack made to enter a Grapple is an attack. If Skip specifies that you don't have to roll randomly when you try to enter in a Grapple he implies that, normally, a melee attack needs a random roll.(proof: he refers to his first article about Grapple, where he states that even melee attacks need a random roll). And thus he specifies a horribly wrong thing, cause melee attacks made against grappling opponents don't need any random roll. Just a note: people on EnWorld (Hypersmurf and Patryn of Elvenshae) have just made me notice that Skip has edited his first article, where he did state that even melee attacks needed a random roll, as I had underlined in one of my previous thread about his Rules of the Game:Grapple article.
The_Ditto 03-23-05, 08:11 AM	If Skip specifies that you don't have to roll randomly when you try to enter in a Grapple he implies that, normally, a melee attack needs a random roll. I disagree ... it doesn't imply anything .. it only clarifies that in this case you don't need to roll randomly .. which is correct .. (proof: he refers to his first article about Grapple, where he states that even melee attacks need a random roll). Not quite "proof", per se .. but I do understand what you are looking at. This line is simply an error .. not proof that he has an error in this latest RotG ... it looks like you're just trying to deliberately punch holes ... sure he's made mistakes .. yes, he's human ... Now can we get off his back already for crying out loud?? :rolleyes: Just a note: people on EnWorld (Hypersmurf and Patryn of Elvenshae) have just made me notice that Skip has edited his first article, where he did state that even melee attacks needed a random roll, as I had underlined in one of my previous thread about his Rules of the Game:Grapple article. Good, can we stop harping on every little mistake or typo the sage makes, now?? :angel: Seriously .. sometimes some people (this isn't directed specifically at you Egres ... there's plenty of people dong this ... worse than you!! :tiphat: ) are reading so much into such a small thing that the logic of the situation gets twisted a bit much .... Oh well .. people will be people, I guess ... :P
Thorak 03-23-05, 08:48 AM	Good, can we stop harping on every little mistake or typo the sage makes, now?? :angel: Seriously .. sometimes some people (this isn't directed specifically at you Egres ... there's plenty of people dong this ... worse than you!! :tiphat: ) are reading so much into such a small thing that the logic of the situation gets twisted a bit much .... Oh well .. people will be people, I guess ... :P Is it too much to ask that one of the three main authors of the system, in explaining the rules, actually follows the rules he helped to write? While this example just seems like poor choice of wording, for anyone who doubts that Skip pulls this kind of stuff, I point you to his discussion on what makes a weapon one-handed or two-handed in the FAQ. The one in which he says that bastard swords are really two-handed weapons, despite the PHB saying they're one-handed weapons. Not only does he flagrantly contradict the rules, he says he is, and expects the reader to take his opinion over the actual rules. Now, I have a lot of respect for Skip. I like the system. And most of his "houserules" aren't bad. My only issue is that he tries to pass them off as real rules. When the system, and the Errata specifically, is very carefully set up so that he can't do that. Not and be right, anyway. It makes me think there needs to be consensus to change the Errata, but Skip has sole control over the FAQ and his articles, so while he can't convince Monte and Jonathan to accept the rules he wants to have, he pushes them as if they're gospel everywhere he can. At least, it's either that there's some fundamental conflicts at the top, or someone's not doing their job right, whether it's the Errata people not keeping up with the changes, or Skip not really knowing what the rules are and feeling his opinion should count for more than the printed rules. And I prefer the conflict theory, because that doesn't mean someone's doing a bad job.
Egres 03-23-05, 09:55 AM	I disagree ... it doesn't imply anything .. it only clarifies that in this case you don't need to roll randomly .. which is correct .. I don't want to debate for the sake of the debate itself, Ditto, but let me underline that, in a rule debate, a specification implies that, normally, something works in a different way. In fact, in his first article about Grapple Skip wrote that even melee attacks were made with a random roll. And that's patently wrong. Now, with that specification, referring to his first article, he's simply confirming that error. Is it too much to ask that one of the three main authors of the system, in explaining the rules, actually follows the rules he helped to write? Sacred words.
The_Ditto 03-23-05, 12:22 PM	I don't want to debate for the sake of the debate itself, Ditto, but let me underline that, in a rule debate, a specification implies that, normally, something works in a different way. Neither do I ... I just wanted to point out the simple logic of the thing: Given A, B and C. If C <> B ... then A is not necessarily C ... Which is the implication you gave .. which is not true - by pure logic ... :tiphat: (to translate: C = random chance ... B = start a grapple ... A = melee attack ) I agree, Skip confused things with his error about the random hit in the first article .. but as it has been pointed out that he has corrected it ... well, ... there is no implication any more ... so what's there to argue?? :angel:
Egres 03-23-05, 02:29 PM	Neither do I ... I just wanted to point out the simple logic of the thing: Given A, B and C. If C <> B ... then A is not necessarily C ... Which is the implication you gave .. which is not true - by pure logic ... :tiphat: (to translate: C = random chance ... B = start a grapple ... A = melee attack ) I agree, Skip confused things with his error about the random hit in the first article .. but as it has been pointed out that he has corrected it ... well, ... there is no implication any more ... so what's there to argue?? :angel: ? Let's read Skip's words, shall we? If multiple opponents are involved in the grapple, you pick one to make the opposed grapple check against. Ok. This is crystalline clear, isn't it? We must first select an opponent to grapple with if we want to enter in a already existing grapple fight. We are, obviously, talking about melee combat here. And thus we can safely assume we aren't goint to make any random roll.(and the RAW support us). But then...surprise! Skip specifies: In this case, you don't have to randomly determine which foe your grab attack strikes (see Part One). In this case? Aren't we using a melee attack? Why are you specifiying that this melee attack isn't going to be made with a random roll? Maybe because your first article, the one you are redirecting us, contained a mistake about melee attacks made with a random roll, a mistake you are confirming here? Let me make an example in order to make my way of reasoning more explicit. Rule 1: In order to walk you must use your legs, but you don't need any wings. Rule 2: In order to walk to school you must walk toward the school building. In this case you don't need any wings. Is this last sentence misleading? Yes, it is, because it make it seems that there are cases where you need wings in order to walk. Just like Skip's last sentence in the passage I have quoted in my first post.
q'afuu 03-23-05, 02:47 PM	In this case? Aren't we using a melee attack? Why are you specifiying that this melee attack isn't going to be made with a random roll? Why are you implying he's specifying something about a melee attack? We know it's a melee attack. But Skip doesn't limit his point to melee attacks alone. There is no mention of the word melee. IOW, the remark is redundant. Redundant doesn't mean wrong.
Egres 03-23-05, 03:35 PM	Why are you implying he's specifying something about a melee attack? We know it's a melee attack. But Skip doesn't limit his point to melee attacks alone. There is no mention of the word melee. Err... Are you goin to say that Skip included the possibility to make a ranged attempt to enter in a Grapple? q'afuu, that's a poor attempt to defend Skips' words. Not to mention his link to the first, wrong, article.
q'afuu 03-23-05, 03:52 PM	Are you goin to say that Skip included the possibility to make a ranged attempt to enter in a Grapple?No, I'm saying he is giving information we already have, so the remark is redundant. Just like the remark in the PHB that says you potentially provoke an AoO when moving into an opponent's square during a grapple is redundant: we already know that movement through a threatened area, unless it's a 5-ft. step, provokes AoOs. The fact that this info is repeated doesn't make it wrong. Would you have said it was an error if he'd said: 'In this case, like with all melee attacks, ...'? If the answer to that question is 'no', where is the error in leaving out a completely non-essential part of the sentence? The link to a previous error in another article has no bearing on this specific sentence either.
Egres 03-23-05, 04:11 PM	Would you have said it was an error if he'd said: 'In this case, like with all melee attacks, ...'? If the answer to that question is 'no', where is the error in leaving out a completely non-essential part of the sentence? Actually, q'afuu, your specification, that added "like all melee attacks", completely changes the sentence's meaning. In fact, if you write "in this case" you make it appear that normally an attack, a melee attack like the one you are making to enter the grapple, needs a random roll. But if you add that "like all melee attacks" you completely change the sentence, because you specify that your "in this case" is referring to all type of attacks, included ranged ones. It would be redundant, but not wrong and/or misleading. If you write "in this case" you must specify the sphere you are talking about, like you have done in your example. If you don't specify it, we can safely assume that you are talking about the type of attacks you are writing in the sentence. If Skip writes about an attack made to enter a Grapple, a melee attack, and then specifies that "in this case" blah blah, it clearly refers to melee attacks (as he had done in his first article). As I wrote above: Rule 1: In order to walk you must use your legs, but you don't need any wings. Rule 2: In order to walk to school you must walk toward the school building. In this case you don't need any wings. Is this last sentence misleading? Yes, it is, because it make it seems that there are cases where you need wings in order to walk. Just like Skip's last sentence in the passage I have quoted in my first post.
q'afuu 03-23-05, 06:50 PM	But if you add that "like all melee attacks" you completely change the sentence, because you specify that your "in this case" is referring to all type of attacks, included ranged ones. Reread that, figure out what you just said and get back to me. ;)
Thorak 03-23-05, 10:06 PM	My effort to re-word what Egres is (I think, anyway) trying to say; Skip says, in the article; "In this case, you don't have to randomly determine which foe your grab attack strikes (see Part One)." This is after talking about an opposed grapple check. You only make an opposed grapple check if we're talking melee; you can't grapple at range. Egres is wondering, if in this case, you don't have to randomly determine which foe your grab attack strikes in melee, what other cases you could possibly ever have to roll randomly to determine who the grab attack hits in melee. Saying "in this case" implies there's at least one other case where you would indeed need to roll randomly. And, according to the core rules, you only need to roll randomly for ranged attacks. Thus, Skip is implying something contrary to the rules.
q'afuu 03-23-05, 11:33 PM	Grappling invisible opponents that are already involved in a grapple. That good enough for you? ;) In either case, that's still besides the point: there are only circumstantial indications that that particular sentence deals only with melee attacks. The paragraph deals primarily with multiple opponents involved in a grapple. That's where the focus is. Imagine this sentence: "In this case, as opposed to when making ranged attacks, you don't have to randomly determine which foe your grab attack strikes (see Part One)." Make more sense now? I repeat: the info is redundant (it's a grab attack, so we know it's not ranged), but that doesn't make it wrong.
The_Ditto 03-24-05, 07:44 AM	IOW, the remark is redundant. Redundant doesn't mean wrong. Precisely!!! :angel: Is this last sentence misleading? Yes, it is, because it make it seems that there are cases where you need wings in order to walk. Just like Skip's last sentence in the passage I have quoted in my first post. Not at all misleading .. redundant yes .. it provides no additional information .. and tells me nothing that I didn't already know ... Just because it clarifies: "Hey: Snow is white!!" .. doesn't imply anything different .. That's the point I'm making .. you're jumping to conclusions .. You are assuming ... that he's added that line to specifically dictate the behaviour of the random roll or not ... and hence implying that the random roll is there to start with ... That may have been the case before he errated the first article .. but as such ... it's not .. .. so .. uh ... what are we arguing about again?? :confused:
Egres 03-24-05, 08:45 AM	My effort to re-word what Egres is (I think, anyway) trying to say; Skip says, in the article; "In this case, you don't have to randomly determine which foe your grab attack strikes (see Part One)." This is after talking about an opposed grapple check. You only make an opposed grapple check if we're talking melee; you can't grapple at range. Egres is wondering, if in this case, you don't have to randomly determine which foe your grab attack strikes in melee, what other cases you could possibly ever have to roll randomly to determine who the grab attack hits in melee. Saying "in this case" implies there's at least one other case where you would indeed need to roll randomly. And, according to the core rules, you only need to roll randomly for ranged attacks. Thus, Skip is implying something contrary to the rules. Precisely. Thank you Thorak. :) Grappling invisible opponents that are already involved in a grapple. That good enough for you? Absolutely No. Why? Because this has nothing to do with Skip's "in this case". Or are you trying to argue that that "in this case" was referred to cases like an invisible opponent? That would be illogical, since his previous sentence has nothing to do with invisible opponents and similar cases. And, just to put an end to your useless efforts to defend him, that would be wrong, since nothing in the RAW implies that you can avoid the random roll in order to enter in a grapple against an invisible opponent.
Thorak 03-24-05, 09:06 AM	I see both sides, here. However, I have to side with Egres in a general way, because if Skip didn't mean there were cases where you would randomly determine the target in melee, he worded that sentence incorrectly. And no, an invisible opponent in a grapple wouldn't be another case. There's nothing about multiple opponents, or invisibility, that would give you a chance to hit the visible guy. You have a 50% chance to miss the Invisible guy, but that doesn't mean you'll stab the other grappler. There is no case, to my knowledge, where you have to randomly determine which opponent you can grapple. If you're joining a grapple, you pick who you want to grapple. If they're invisible, you have a 50% miss chance. That's it. Saying "in this case" implies there's at least one other case. And there isn't. There is no case where a grapple attempt randomly determines who you grapple. Consider; if I said "If there's multiple footballs in the basket, you can take one to play with. In this case, the football is oval-shaped as opposed to spherical." What other case is a football spherical? They're not, by definition. They never are. The last sentence isn't written well. I admit that here, it doesn't matter, because it's redundantly saying you don't do something you don't do anyway, but the implications behind the wording say things contrary to the rules.
kjenks 03-24-05, 09:10 AM	The confusion is understandable. Skip went back and edited Part 1. As we discussed above, it used to say: "any attack aimed into your shared space has an equal chance to strike you or the creature you're grappling." The edited version says: "any ranged attack aimed into your shared space has an equal chance to strike you or the creature you're grappling." He inserted the word "ranged" into the sentence.
The_Ditto 03-24-05, 09:17 AM	I see both sides, here. However, I have to side with Egres in a general way, because if Skip didn't mean there were cases where you would randomly determine the target in melee, he worded that sentence incorrectly. Actually, for the most part, I understand perfectly what Egres ( and you ) are referring to ... the simple fact that the Sage posted that error in the first article is what truly leads to the confusion .. But the point I'm trying to make (and obviously not so well ;) heh ) is that since he's corrected that first post ... well, there's not really any confusion any more ... is there?? I just see it as "left over junk" that doesn't really mean anything ... What other case is a football spherical? They're not, by definition. They never are. The last sentence isn't written well. True ... and hence, it doesn't really contribute to anything .. and hence doesn't imply that any football is not oval .. :tiphat: I admit that here, it doesn't matter, because it's redundantly saying you don't do something you don't do anyway, but the implications behind the wording say things contrary to the rules. Sometimes .. not always .. doesn't matter ... :angel: (does it? :confused: ) (Trust me .. I don't want to turn this into a 20 page discussion on the proper use of English ... hehe ) ;)
q'afuu 03-24-05, 11:19 AM	I see both sides, here. However, I have to side with Egres in a general way, because if Skip didn't mean there were cases where you would randomly determine the target in melee, he worded that sentence incorrectly. He didn't mean there where case where you would randomly determine the target in melee. He meant there are cases where you do randomly determine the target when attacking someone involved in a grapple: when making ranged attacks. That's the focus of the paragraph: attacking someone involved in a grapple. And no, an invisible opponent in a grapple wouldn't be another case. There's nothing about multiple opponents, or invisibility, that would give you a chance to hit the visible guy. You have a 50% chance to miss the Invisible guy, but that doesn't mean you'll stab the other grappler. There is no case, to my knowledge, where you have to randomly determine which opponent you can grapple. If you're joining a grapple, you pick who you want to grapple. If they're invisible, you have a 50% miss chance. That's it. My suggestion was more in jest than anything else. You wanted a situation where, in melee (obviously, since it's a grapple attempt), you'd have to randomly determine who you actually grapple. Are you telling me that you'd rule that when I tried to grapple a single wrestler out of two invisible ones, I'd be able to attack a specific one? I really don't see how. There's no way to tell them apart. I'd have a 50% miss chance to worry about as well, but that's a separate issue. That has to do with actually hitting or not, not with picking the right target. Saying "in this case" implies there's at least one other case. And there isn't. There is no case where a grapple attempt randomly determines who you grapple. No, but there's a case where when you make an attack against several grappling characters you determine which ine you hit at random: when you make a ranged attack. Consider; if I said "If there's multiple footballs in the basket, you can take one to play with. In this case, the football is oval-shaped as opposed to spherical." What other case is a football spherical? They're not, by definition. They never are. The last sentence isn't written well. I'm more of a soccer man myself. We call that football, and it's played with spherical balls. ;) I admit that here, it doesn't matter, because it's redundantly saying you don't do something you don't do anyway, but the implications behind the wording say things contrary to the rules.That implication only exists if you start from the premisse that the paragraph focuses on grapple attacks. It doesn't. It answers the question what happens when you attack multiple grapplers, in a specific case: this case being when you attack by joining the grapple yourself.
Egres 03-24-05, 01:39 PM	That's the focus of the paragraph: attacking someone involved in a grapple. right. What are you going to do when you try to attack someone involved in a grapple? A melee attack. And thus, his "in this case" is wrong. I'm more of a soccer man myself. Like this cafù? :D http://home.swipnet.se/sportz/brazil/cafu.jpg
Thorak 03-24-05, 02:38 PM	He didn't mean there where case where you would randomly determine the target in melee. He meant there are cases where you do randomly determine the target when attacking someone involved in a grapple: when making ranged attacks. That's the focus of the paragraph: attacking someone involved in a grapple. It's more specific than that. It's about joining a grapple. If you can tell me how you're joing a grapple at range, then I'll admit that the clause is fine. My suggestion was more in jest than anything else. You wanted a situation where, in melee (obviously, since it's a grapple attempt), you'd have to randomly determine who you actually grapple. Are you telling me that you'd rule that when I tried to grapple a single wrestler out of two invisible ones, I'd be able to attack a specific one? I really don't see how. There's no way to tell them apart. I'd have a 50% miss chance to worry about as well, but that's a separate issue. That has to do with actually hitting or not, not with picking the right target. Perhaps you can tell whose grunts are whose, or you friend who's grappling says "no, that's my arm", or what have you. There's no suggestion that it's randomly determined. Even if that's silly. No, but there's a case where when you make an attack against several grappling characters you determine which ine you hit at random: when you make a ranged attack. And this is discussing joining a grapple. Ranged attacks are completely irrelevant, since you can't make a grab attack at range. I'm more of a soccer man myself. We call that football, and it's played with spherical balls. ;) I should have seen that one coming. Change it to a "rugby" ball. Same general shape, no spherical versions. That implication only exists if you start from the premisse that the paragraph focuses on grapple attacks. It doesn't. It answers the question what happens when you attack multiple grapplers, in a specific case: this case being when you attack by joining the grapple yourself. No, it's about joining a grapple. I'll quote it again; "If multiple opponents are involved in the grapple, you pick one to make the opposed grapple check against. In this case, you don't have to randomly determine which foe your grab attack strikes (see Part One)." The situation is joining a grapple. There is no case where this would cause you to randomly determine which foe you grab. The second sentence implies there is such a case. If it had said "you don't have to determine which foe your attack strikes", you might have a point. It specifies "grab attack", though. So the other cases must be cases of grab attacks randomly picking a target. Of which there are no cases.
Frosty The Snowman 03-26-05, 04:38 PM	Thorak If you can tell me how you're joing a grapple at range, then I'll admit that the clause is fine. Ranged attacks are completely irrelevant, since you can't make a grab attack at range. Unless I am mistaken ... The feat Ranged Pin from Complete Warrior. -Frosty
Egres 03-26-05, 05:42 PM	Unless I am mistaken ... The feat Ranged Pin from Complete Warrior. -Frosty You are mistaken. That feat doesn't allow you to grab your opponent, nor does it allow you to join a grapple.
q'afuu 03-26-05, 07:16 PM	The situation is joining a grapple. There is no case where this would cause you to randomly determine which foe you grab. The second sentence implies there is such a case. If it had said "you don't have to determine which foe your attack strikes", you might have a point. It specifies "grab attack", though. So the other cases must be cases of grab attacks randomly picking a target. Of which there are no cases. 'This case' refers to making a grapple attempt (under the circumstances of your opponent already grappling). Hence the redundancy: that same sentence specifies it's a grab attempt, as does the prior line. I notice you don't dispute my grappling-one-of-multiple-invisible-grapplers scenario anymore. Do you still disagree that which one you grab is essentially random (I know Skip isn't refering to this, this is just my innate need for validation speaking ;) )? As for grappling at range, I seem to recall a creature with a natural weapon (something tentacle or whip-like) that can try to grab as a ranged touch attack, but I'm not sure (I'm definitely not sure it's a WotC-published critter).
Frosty The Snowman 03-27-05, 03:14 AM	Egres What in your opinion does the feat do then? It certainly allows you to perform a ranged grapple attempt. There is an initial attack to indicate successfully hitting your target and then an opposed grapple check. This certainly sounds a lot like grabbing and pinning, or at least the ranged equivalent. (Is this not what Thorak was asking for?) Perhaps you could explain, when you have a chance. -Frosty
Egres 03-27-05, 04:52 AM	'This case' refers to making a grapple attempt (under the circumstances of your opponent already grappling). Hence the redundancy: that same sentence specifies it's a grab attempt, as does the prior line. Right. And thus it's misleading, since there are no cases where you make a grab attempt to join a Grapple where you make a random roll due to the fact that your opponent is grappling. I notice you don't dispute my grappling-one-of-multiple-invisible-grapplers scenario anymore. Do you still disagree that which one you grab is essentially random (I know Skip isn't refering to this, this is just my innate need for validation speaking )? Meaningless question. If Skip was referring to this scenario would be even more wrong, since there are no rules that can support his viewpoint. If my ally and my opponent are involved in a Grapple and are both invisible I must make a 50% of failure roll to see if I catch the right one, and the fact that they are grappling each other can't help me. And thus Skip's word would be, I repeat, even more wrong, since he says that "in this case" you don't need to make a random roll. Perhaps you could explain, when you have a chance. Can you join a Grapple with this feat? No. Draw your conclusion.
Frosty The Snowman 03-27-05, 11:20 AM	Egres, Do you dispute that this feat allows you to grapple a foe from range? -Frosty
simen_88 03-27-05, 12:29 PM	It allows you to perform grapple checks at a range, but it isn't a grab attempt.
Frosty The Snowman 03-27-05, 01:04 PM	Simen, I certainly see your point as the feat never uses the word grab. However, how would you describe the initial attack before the opposed grapple check? Is this not a ranged version of a grab attempt? -Frosty
Egres 03-27-05, 01:51 PM	Simen, I certainly see your point as the feat never uses the word grab. However, how would you describe the initial attack before the opposed grapple check? Is this not a ranged version of a grab attempt? -Frosty Frosty, are you really arguing that you can join a grapple with that feat?
q'afuu 03-27-05, 03:20 PM	Right. And thus it's misleading, since there are no cases where you make a grab attempt to join a Grapple where you make a random roll due to the fact that your opponent is grappling. At least you've come from 'wrong' or 'houserule' to 'misleading'. That's progress. ;) A Roper trying to latch on to one of several grappling opponents with its Strand ability does have to randomly determine which opponent he 'grabs'. That's because it's not joining the grapple and is making a ranged attack. As for Ranged Pin, you can actually make a case for it applying here. According to the PHB glossary, a grab is the initial attack to start a grapple. When you use Ranged Pin, you are starting a grapple (there's no point in arguing that you're not joining a grapple with this, the argument goes to what 'grab' entails) - hence, the initial (ranged) attack in a Ranged Pin attempt can be labeled a grab. The Glossary only mentions melee when it expands on what a grab entails: that's not part of the definition. The RP feat merely changes the mechanics involved, it doesn't define a completely different grapple.
Frosty The Snowman 03-27-05, 05:51 PM	Egres Essentially, q'afuu sums up what I was trying to say. Ranged Pin allows you to grapple from range. There is an initial attack that is basically the "grab". Again I ask, Egres what do you think the feat allows you to do? -Frosty
Egres 03-28-05, 01:56 PM	At least you've come from 'wrong' or 'houserule' to 'misleading'. That's progress. ;) Nope. That's my mistake. Thorak has already shown it: Skip's sentence implies there are cases where you you need a random roll, and thus is wrong. Again I ask, Egres what do you think the feat allows you to do? Everything but join a Grapple. Nuff said.
Frosty The Snowman 03-29-05, 01:44 AM	Egres What if you had both the feats Ranged Pin and Improved Precise Shot and you utilize Ranged Pin against a foe currently involved in a grapple? Would you not be using the feat Ranged Pin to join a grapple? -Frosty
Egres 03-29-05, 04:08 AM	Egres What if you had both the feats Ranged Pin and Improved Precise Shot and you utilize Ranged Pin against a foe currently involved in a grapple? Would you not be using the feat Ranged Pin to join a grapple? -Frosty Nope. Ask yourself;: after your Ranged Pin attack does an opponent trying to hit you need to make a random roll?
Frosty The Snowman 03-31-05, 03:15 AM	Egres Nothing in the feat says you are unable to use it against an opponent that is already involved in a grapple. Joining a grapple: (From the SRD) If your target is already grappling someone else, you can use an attack to start a grapple, as above, except that the target doesn’t get an attack of opportunity against you, and your grab automatically succeeds. You still have to make a successful opposed grapple check to become part of the grapple. If there are multiple opponents involved in the grapple, you pick one to make the opposed grapple check against. ________________________________________ ____________________ The fact that the feat allows you to join a grapple without being subject to some of the disadvantages of being involved in a grapple via the standard method does not mean that you are not joining a grapple. I.e. if you grapple someone already involved in a grapple you are joining a grapple. The feat does not preclude you from doing this. It's a feat. It gives you advantages that individuals without it do not have. -Frosty
Egres 03-31-05, 05:15 AM	Egres Nothing in the feat says you are unable to use it against an opponent that is already involved in a grapple. Joining a grapple: (From the SRD) If your target is already grappling someone else, you can use an attack to start a grapple, as above, except that the target doesn’t get an attack of opportunity against you, and your grab automatically succeeds. You still have to make a successful opposed grapple check to become part of the grapple. If there are multiple opponents involved in the grapple, you pick one to make the opposed grapple check against. ________________________________________ ____________________ The fact that the feat allows you to join a grapple without being subject to some of the disadvantages of being involved in a grapple via the standard method does not mean that you are not joining a grapple. I.e. if you grapple someone already involved in a grapple you are joining a grapple. The feat does not preclude you from doing this. It's a feat. It gives you advantages that individuals without it do not have. -Frosty Nope. You aren't joining a Grapple at all. You still threaten the area around you without Improved Grab. Opponents don't have to randomly roll to hit you. You are even far away from the Grappling opponents. You don't have to make opposed roll to pin or attack your opponent. You can't even execute any of the options allowed for a Grappling opponent. Your opponent doesn't have to make an opposed Grapple roll to escape from you. You aren't joining a Grapple at all: deal with it.
Frosty The Snowman 03-31-05, 10:52 PM	Egres Again you continue to make the argument that because you are not subject to the standard effects/benefits of being in a grapple that the feat does not allow you to join a grapple. Fact: The feat allows you to grapple at range Fact: Attempting to grapple someone already involved in a grapple means joining a grapple. (Albeit in this case not through physically touching your opponent) Fact: The feat does not preclude you from attempting to perform a ranged grapple against someone already involved in a grapple. Until you can disprove any of the above, your arguments lack substance. Also you state that: Your opponent doesn't have to make an opposed Grapple roll to escape from you. Agreed, the feat gives the following instructions in the forth sentence of the benefit section: To break free, the victim must make a DC 15 Strength check or a DC 15 Escape Artist check as a standard action. There is no opposed grapple check to break free. There is a different mechanic to describe how to break free. It is not grappling through the traditional method. That would be the point of the feat. -Frosty
Thorak 04-01-05, 08:07 AM	Egres Again you continue to make the argument that because you are not subject to the standard effects/benefits of being in a grapple that the feat does not allow you to join a grapple. Fact: The feat allows you to grapple at range Yes, in a very limited way. Fact: Attempting to grapple someone already involved in a grapple means joining a grapple. (Albeit in this case not through physically touching your opponent) Except you're not joining a grapple. Because the process for a Ranged Pin is entirely unlike the process for entering a grapple, and you can't do anything but the one pin effect, and then it automatically ends. Fact: The feat does not preclude you from attempting to perform a ranged grapple against someone already involved in a grapple. Right, but the ranged grapple isn't a normal grapple. This is all irrelevant, though. The example Skip's using talks about a Grab attempt. The process for a Grapple is; AoO, Grab, Hold, Maintain. So he's talking about that second step. And a ranged pin's process is; Ranged Attack, Opposed Grapple Check (equivalent to Hold in above process). No Grab attempt. So that's not what Skip could possibly be talking about. Since he's talking about Grab attempts. Which are defined as melee touch attacks.
Frosty The Snowman 04-01-05, 11:03 AM	Thorak I appreciate your input. My argument had nothing to do with Skip’s article. It was in response to your and Egres’s posts. You asked for an example of joining a grapple at range. My argument revolved around the fact that by the RAW, the feat allows you to perform a ranged grapple against someone already involved in a grapple. The SRD’s definition of joining a grapple does not specifically state it must be by melee contact. Therefore it is technically joining a grapple. You can state that this was not the intent of the RAW, but I am not arguing the intent. I site your signature. It states my view (in this case) very accurately. -Frosty
Egres 04-01-05, 11:07 AM	My argument had nothing to do with Skip’s article. Nuff said, then.
Frosty The Snowman 04-01-05, 11:17 AM	Fair enough. -Frosty
Thorak 04-01-05, 01:14 PM	Thorak I appreciate your input. My argument had nothing to do with Skip’s article. It was in response to your and Egres’s posts. You asked for an example of joining a grapple at range. My argument revolved around the fact that by the RAW, the feat allows you to perform a ranged grapple against someone already involved in a grapple. The SRD’s definition of joining a grapple does not specifically state it must be by melee contact. Therefore it is technically joining a grapple. You can state that this was not the intent of the RAW, but I am not arguing the intent. I site your signature. It states my view (in this case) very accurately. -Frosty I still argue that it's not "joining a grapple". It's making a ranged grapple attempt. Unless you're really going to try and say that I can make my Ranged Pin attack from 1,000 feet away with my composite longbow, and not make the ranged touch attack to hit. Because that's what "joining a grapple" does in D&D; they don't get an AoO, and you automatically hit. You just need to make the opposed grapple check. Alternatively, it specifically cites that you automatically grab. Show me where a ranged pin allows you to grab, and I'll allow that it's joining a grapple. It's making a ranged grapple attempt against a target already grappling. It doesn't count as "joining a grapple" as far as D&D is concerned.
Egres 04-01-05, 02:55 PM	I still argue that it's not "joining a grapple". It's making a ranged grapple attempt. Unless you're really going to try and say that I can make my Ranged Pin attack from 1,000 feet away with my composite longbow, and not make the ranged touch attack to hit. Because that's what "joining a grapple" does in D&D; they don't get an AoO, and you automatically hit. You just need to make the opposed grapple check. Alternatively, it specifically cites that you automatically grab. Show me where a ranged pin allows you to grab, and I'll allow that it's joining a grapple. It's making a ranged grapple attempt against a target already grappling. It doesn't count as "joining a grapple" as far as D&D is concerned. Right. In fact, that feat is called Ranged Pin but has quite nothing to do with the Grapple special attack. You don't even have to make an opposed roll, and you aren't limited to the Grapple options. Frosty will try to argue that is Grapple "with some exceptions", without being able to notice that a Grapple attack completely different form a standard Grapple isn't a Grapple attack at all.
Frosty The Snowman 04-01-05, 03:57 PM	Without being able to notice? ;) My augment has never been that a ranged grapple is exactly the same a melee grapple. It is a different type of grapple. Why else call it a ranged grapple? Could have just as easily used similar mechanics as the net and entangled. The initial ranged attack (not a ranged touch attack) described in the feat is the ranged equivalent of the grab. It is how you are starting the ranged grapple. You do not feel this is a grab. Got it. This is very clear. Egres, the feat very clearly does say there is an opposed grapple check. (check the end of the third sentence in the benefit section) Maybe you were not able to notice this. ;) -Frosty
Egres 04-02-05, 02:08 AM	Without being able to notice? ;) My augment has never been that a ranged grapple is exactly the same a melee grapple. It is a different type of grapple. Why else call it a ranged grapple? Just to complete the "Ranged Special attack Series". Egres, the feat very clearly does say there is an opposed grapple check. Actually, there's no Grapple check involved in order to make any Grapple special option, nor there are any opposed Grapple check made to escape from the Grapple. How can you say you are joining a Grapple if your opponent doesn't need to make any opposed roll against you in order to escape from your "Grapple"?
Thorak 04-02-05, 09:39 PM	The initial ranged attack (not a ranged touch attack) described in the feat is the ranged equivalent of the grab. It is how you are starting the ranged grapple. You do not feel this is a grab. Got it. This is very clear. It isn't a grab. If it were a grab, it would say so. It is a ranged attack. It isn't even a ranged touch attack, to mimic the melee touch attack a grab makes. It's not a grab. In any way, shape, or form. Nor is there any suggestion it is. Egres, the feat very clearly does say there is an opposed grapple check. (check the end of the third sentence in the benefit section) Maybe you were not able to notice this. ;) -Frosty I think Egres meant you can't make a grapple check to try and oppose the pin, like you can with any normal pin.
Frosty The Snowman 04-03-05, 12:15 AM	Thorak It is the ranged equivalent of the melee grab. You use the grab to start a traditional grapple. You use the ranged attack to start the ranged grapple. You obviously disagree. Point made. Egres It appears we will have to agree to disagree. -Frosty