Grab and ends/ignores Immobilized

[Shin Okada]

Grab makes a target immobilized.

If something (say, Holy Celerity) enables the victim to ignore the effects of the immobilized, can the victim move away and end the grab?

 

[Joshua Randall]

My opinion: no.

Grabbed is a condition that refers to Immobilized in the same way that Dominated used to refer to Dazed. I think the intent of Grabbed is that you explicitly have to break the grab (via Escape action, forced movement, teleport, ...), not just cancel Immobilized.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Grabbed eventually get rewritten not to refer to Immobilized, in the same way that Dominated got rewritten not to refer to Dazed.

That said, I can certainly see the other side of the argument -- that ending Immobilized effectively ends Grabbed -- and I wouldn't make a big deal out of it if a DM ruled that way when I was playing.

 

[wedgeski]

Agreed with JR. I personally would need to rule this case-by-case depending on what benefit the attacker received by grabbing the target, and the nature of the thing that was doing the grabbing. For example, if the grab was a tentacle that squeezed as well as immobilised, I would allow the target to move but he would still get squeezing damage, because the Grabbed condition still applies.

 

[Obryn]

Even if you can break immobilization, you're still grabbed, and get immobilized again right away.

-O

 

[DracoSuave]

Basically, the target is grabbed but is not immobilized. This can mean he can just walk out of the grabbed condition.

 

[The Little Raven]

The Grab action stipulates they have to be within your melee reach to grab, and if you move away (and don't pull them) you end the grab, or if a push/pull/slide moves them or you out of your melee reach, you end the grab. It doesn't say explicitly about people being immune to immobilized and moving away, but based on the fact that it seems to be based on melee reach, if they move out of your reach, you end the grab.

 

[the Jester]

Interesting question.

To offer an interesting action, and to reward pcs that think to try this approach, I'd probably rule that the character is still grabbed but can move within the limits of the grabber's reach.

By the RAW, though, I don't think the character would get any love out of an "ends immobilized" ability.

 

[Squire James]

I'd probably allow someone to escape a grab this way if he moves out of the reach/range of the attack that grabbed them. For instance, ropers have a really long grab range, so escaping them will be difficult (i.e. the pull effects still work). Don't forget to enforce opportunity attacks if warranted as well.

I suppose being able to walk out of grabs when fighting a grabbing monster is not much more powerful than getting resist 10 fire when fighting Fire Bats...

 

[Joshua Randall]

Don't forget to enforce opportunity attacks if warranted as well.

As a side note, monsters that have threatening reach and a melee basic that immobilizes (whether via grab or not) are extremely nasty against melee PCs.

Fighter: "I move up to the monster and attack!"
DM: "It has threatening reach. It OAs you 3 squares away and immobilizes you."
Fighter: "I... uh... @$#%^!"

 

[mneme]

JR: yeah, no kidding. Monsters like that are one of the few situations where I don't think it's shenanigans for PCs to abuse readied actions in order to avoid OAs (although a reasonable point of view is that it's never shenanigans -- that readied actions carry their own substantial cost, and they're what you--player or intelligent monster--do once you realize you're facing a reactive threat or a turtle-style enemy that's only vulnerable once it's already acting).