NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aegeri" data-source="post: 5319775" data-attributes="member: 78116">Yes it will, because I'm about to quote the same source - Customer Service - in support of my argument. Also note that I asked them a precise question and got two answers that both support my argument, but both suggest the DM can houserule it to follow the restrictions on grab. Most importantly, both acknowledge my argument is correct: The power does not have a restriction and so can be used to grab targets. This would make sense, as the brawler fighters class features and powers often rely on having grabbed targets. If this is useless in a wide host of solo and other encounters with huge plus enemies, that's just poor design on wizards part. That is of course, not the case.Before going into this, Customer Service =/ Wizard of the Coast. They are actually an outsourced group independent of Wizards. They are also frequently confused about things on how rules like grappling actually work and are by far not a definitive source. None the less I asked them precise questions (as opposed to yours) and I've quoted their responses below. I wanted to make sure, as you got so excited about it initially, to make sure I showed you a contradictory answer. In reality, I don't regard CS as anything more than another persons opinion and in fact - your own opinion about grab in this thread has just as much weight to me as theirs. As you asked them though, I felt the need to pose my question to them just to demonstrate that your answer from CS isn't as definitive as you think.Of course you can now admit you were incorrect - if you believe CS is an official source of rules - or you can realize what I have that CS isn't actually definitive at all. If you ask me, the opinion you gave in this thread is just as good an opinion as the one I got from customer support. The difference is you seem to take them more seriously than I do, so you've got the problem with the below two responses you now need to address: Not me. I've proven my point. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />The first response:He suggests following the rules for grab, despite the fact my argument is correct: The power doesn't make any such restriction whatsoever. So in the interest of actually getting a coherent answer, I ask a 100% specific question that cannot be easily wiggled out of. There is some ambiguity in that response if the RAW suggests following the rules for grab or not, or if indeed it's a "fiction" thing. Much like grabbing a swarm.So there is no escape now. I either get a "Yes, when a power says you grab the target you follow the rules for the attack called grab or it actually means the target is grabbed, or the power does not have that restriction by RAW".So the DM can houserule it if he wants, but according to two customer service individuals my original argument was 100% correct. The power doesn't have the restrictions that grab does. I left no wiggle room here or interpretation room, unlike P1NBACKs original question that didn't actually address the argument we were making. I asked specifically if the specific power in question allowed you to ignore the normal rules and both said yes, "but" with the DM making a decision. But both heavily implied the RAW was they did not have the size restrictions of the grab attack. This makes sense, because as I said repeatedly, grab as an attack is not a condition period. Grabbed is the condition. Grab is a power. Also, I have two CS sources saying the power isn't restricted and that it's up to the DM if he enforces any size restriction. But the actual RAW according to the more specific response I got was that those powers do not have the restrictions of the power called grab - particularly because I was 100% specific in my question and wording. Also to Draco, you need to look at the compendium more:<a href="http://www.wizards.com/dndinsider/compendium/glossary.aspx?id=405" target="_blank">Grabbed Rules Condition in the compendium</a>.So basically my interpretation was correct and those who think another power, that is not related to the one being used somehow restricts it are still incorrect IMO. The second answer there is 100% definitive that the rules do not support the restriction being applied to other powers that grab. Albeit both CS rulings I got said it was common to houserule in the restrictions from the grab power, but that was not the RAW (as both conceded the power doesn't have a restriction). Even if you disagree with me this is correct, the very fact by asking the right question I can get the answer I wanted from CS should give you a lot of pause before you go throwing around CS as being definitive in future <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />So once again, P1NBACK, show me specifically on the power grappling strike on the target line of the power grappling strike where it has the restriction on size. Not on an unrelated generic attack power that all classes have. Show me the size restriction on the grab effect, on the specific power, on the target line of grappling strike. If it isn't there, then a Brawler Fighter can grab a gargantuan dragon by RAW and both CS answers confirm that.Also for the record, I asked them about grabbing a swarm as well. The answer was similar to the first grab answer. That yes you can do it by RAW, but that the DM has the right to decide you can't if he felt like it. So in other words, pretty much as I've asserted these powers work the way I interpreted them to work. CS just provides that the DM may decide otherwise in situations that don't make sense to him: But this doesn't change the RAW one iota.</blockquote>

Verification