Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Radiating Gnome" data-source="post: 5118697" data-attributes="member: 150">One of the things that I find interesting in the whole debate is that it's impossible to use a RAW interpretation of free hand to support the RAW reading of the class feature.  Here's what I mean -- the idea that a hand that is grabbing a target is not free is an interpretation, not RAW.  No where in the rules on grab does it say that a hand that is grabbing a target is not free.  It comes damn close to it, sure, but it does not explicitly say it.  It says that if you have one hand free, you can grab one target. That's the sidebar in MP2 p6.  No where else that I have found are the grab rules that explicit about free hands. The idea that the free hand used to grab an enemy is no longer free is an interpretation, not RAW.So, to make a case for the very literal, specific RAW reading of the class feature, the argument depends upon an interpretation that cannot be supported with RAW.  I think it's interesting to note that the insubstantial property does not explicitly grant immunity to grab attacks, for example.  I think any self respecting DM would rule 0 that and I'd do it too, but what we're talking about in the case of the brawler class feature is a very literal reading that, at least in my opinion, disregards the intent of the authors.  Now, I'm not a total jack@$$.  It's damn hard to go to sleep at night hanging my hat on such a thin distinction, and arguing against the idea that a hand grabbing a target is, by RAW still "free".  I think the real question is about the intent of the feature and the rules.So, towards intent (sorry I'm covering some ground that has already been covered):1. I have a hard time imagining a reason for the bonus to fort for having a hand free if that bonus is only available when the fighter is not grabbing someone.  Does having that hand free somehow make him more resillient?  So, I think the boost was clearly intended to make the figthter's grabs harder to escape, which would strongly imply that the intent was that the bonus would persist while the fighter is grabbing the target.2. The inescapable grab feat makes far less sense if the intent was that the brawler would not have the bonus to fort.  Sure, the fighter's fort defense will still certainly be higher than the reflex defense, but if the difference may not be enough to justify taking this feat. 3. The RAW interpretation essentially punishes the brawler for grabbing targets -- "tactical choice" or whatever else you call it, this applies a penalty to the character for doing something the class is designed to do -- it is very much like a rule that would have rogues granting combat advantage every time they used their sneak attack damage. Building a class around a certain behavior and then punishing the behavior is not fun play, IMO.  So, if it were my game, I would interpret the rules so that the bonus would persist. I can't speak to the game balance issues -- I've played my brawler twice, and I don't have enough experience with brawlers to weight the advantages and disadvantages yet.  And, as I said when I started the thread, I'm biased.  -rg</blockquote>

Verification