Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 5321684" data-attributes="member: 71571">There are problems with this interpretation.  (also ignoring the fact a different CS rep put out a different argument, and your taking, specifically, 'Your DM makes the rules' disclaimers as an actual statement of rules interpretation, other than just a formality they append to every rules question ever.)1)  Any interpretation that says that grabbing a target has nothing to do with the rules for grabbing the target is automatically self-contradictory.  If they do not invoke the rules to grab a target, then no way exists to adjudicate a power that grabs a target.  It might be different if there was a grab action seperate from a grabbed condition... but that's not correct and not how it exists in the rules.  There is only one entry on grab in the core.2)  Specific vs General does not allow one to overcome restrictions placed in general rules due to omission.  As a perfect example of this:  "The general rule is that you don't add proficiency bonuses for weapons you lack proficiency in; no power exists that mentions that you must not do this, therefore all weapon powers allow you to add the prof bonus regardless of proficiency."  That logic does not make sense, the game does not work based on 'This power doesn't say I can't, so even tho the rule says I can't, I therefore can.'  A power does not need to repeat the restrictions placed in a general rule in order for that general rule to apply.  In order to make the general rule not work in a specific case, it must contradict the general rule.  Omission is simply not enough.  Omission is not contradiction.3)  In the specific case of powers that invoke the grab rules, their targeting of 'One Creature' is not a contradiction of the general rule on targeting with powers.  However the specific case of grabbing is, and 'one creature' does not contradict other restrictions on that action.  It is possible to do both.The reason that specific powers don't allow you to grab two-step larger creatures is simply because at no point do they contradict the rules for grabbing, nor do they invoke some other grabbing rules which some claim to exist by inference but don't actually exist in print within the confines of my PHB or the errata.  If it mentions grabbing, grab, or grabbed, it must evoke the only rules for it that exist:  Those are in the PHB.  There's no 'The grab action doesn't use the same rules as grabbing' malarky.  There's no 'Powers that grab do not actually use the grab action rules.'  There's no 'Grabbed is a condition.'All that stuff is made-up.  Invented.  Non-existant fictions.  The truth is that powers that grab use the grab action rules for grabbing except for when and where those powers contradict those rules (the attack roll made, damage dealt).  You still use the other rules for grab when they aren't contradicted:  Using skill checks to escape the grapple, the fact it is a sustain minor, and the targetting restrictions.If you have a power that says 'You grab the target, even if it is two or more steps larger than you' then you have a -real- contradiction and the grab will work.  Otherwise, you have no contradiction, and the grab portion of that power will not.</blockquote>

Verification