PDA

View Full Version : Pathfinder: Grapple Questions



Road_Runner
2011-10-13, 12:37 AM
I have a quick question regarding improved grapple:

it states that you "receive a +2 bonus to your CMD whenever an opponent tries to grapple you". Does this apply to when an opponent makes a grapple check against your CMD when they try to break a grapple?

Also, what is the point of Rapid Grappler? It seem like it simply lets you take 3 grapple actions, for example a pin and two attacks. Is there any way to get a full attack off while holding something in a grapple in pathfinder?

AspectOfNihil
2011-10-13, 01:14 AM
By RAW, doesn't seem to apply no. Though it is something that could be houseruled, as it seems to fit with the feat.

Yes. that is the point of Rapid Grappler.

I'd say no, simply by the mechanic of how grappling works in Pathfinder, making it a standard action instead of an attack pretty much screws that over. Who can say what they may release in the future, though I'd say they'd steer away from things like that.

Road_Runner
2011-10-13, 02:52 AM
Oh, I totally forgot I was going to include this question:

The Crane Wing fighting style says that you can "deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you."

1) Can this ever apply to melee touch attacks?

2) It seems to me that in if it "deflect one melee attack that would normally hit you", this means that your opponent must roll to hit before applying this feat? (i.e. if your opponent attacks and completely misses your AC you don't have to waste the deflect for that attack because they wouldn't have normally hit you).

AspectOfNihil
2011-10-13, 02:58 AM
The feat only appears to prevent damage from the attack, so a grapple touch attack would still work.

It's a strange one, but that appears to be how it's written.

EDIT: You are correct on the second one, you only need to use it if the attack would hit, so it only needs to be declared after the attack would normally hit.

panaikhan
2011-10-13, 07:29 AM
"deflect one melee attack that would normally hit you"

I seem to remember an argument along this kind of lines with some spells that protected you from attacks. The lower level spell was worded exactly like that. The higher level spell was worded "one melee attack that actually hits you"

The example for the lower level spell cited a monster that normally had 3 attacks per round, taking three 'strikes' from the allotted number protected from by the spell, without any rolling taking place.