Monk Grapple AoO

[Caliban]

These example intrigue me. Can you give me details?

The first one is a Hypism. According to him, if you put flaming on a sap, all the damage is nonlethal. A sap is a weapon that does non-lethal damage, and the flaming enhancement makes the weapon do extra fire damage. It's the weapon that does the damage, not the flames. So, the flaming sap would do extra non-lethal fire damage.

The second one follows from the first: When you activate a flaming weapon, it's covered in fire. However, since it's the weapon that deals the damage and not the flames, activating it is only for effect. The flaming weapon will do the fire damage regardless.

 

[Infiniti2000]

No, you can't do that. That's not RAW.

So much anger, Caliban. You're either slipping to the Dark Side or you're already there.

 

[Infiniti2000]

That depends on whether or not "If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the chain to avoid being tripped" means "you can take the Drop An Item free action to drop the chaing to avoid being tripped", or whether it's a special ability of the weapon that doesn't require an action.

It doesn't say it's a free action, so it's not.

 

[Infiniti2000]

On a grapple tangent - (snip giant octopus stats)

Does this mean that the octopus could get 8 grapple attempts?

Yes, each one taken in order as the octopus hits any size creature (a specific exception to normal improved grab).

or do you do all the melee attacks and then have one grapple/constrict chance vs one of the targets struck that round?

You do one melee attack at a time until the octopus succeeds on an improved grab (grapple check). Once it does that, the octopus's attack action (probably full round attack action) is over unless it (1) takes the -20 penalty to not be considered grappling, or (2) attacks to damage its opponent, using a -4 penalty on the remaining natural weapons (but this part can be debated).

and why does this not allow an improved grab on an AoO again?

Because the improved grab text specifically says that it requires a free action. Since it requires an action and you can't take actions outside your turn, then you can't use it during an AoO which occurs outside your turn. It is the same issue as whether you would allow a quickened magic missile on an AoO in addition to an attack with a dagger.

 

[Caliban]

So much anger, Caliban. You're either slipping to the Dark Side or you're already there.

Hyperbole aside, the unfortunate fact is that everything I said was true.

Beyond a certain point, focusing on RAW to the exclusion of all else makes the game more complicated, less consistent, harder to play, and in many cases can lead to conclusions that are the opposite of the intended rules. (And now we get the whole "you can't know what intent is" speech. )

 

[Infiniti2000]

Beyond a certain point, focusing on RAW to the exclusion of all else makes the game more complicated, less consistent, harder to play, and in many cases can lead to conclusions that are the opposite of the intended rules. (And now we get the whole "you can't know what intent is" speech. )

Sure, but only if you actually maintain such interpretations in the game. So, what I infer from your commentary is that you are stating that not only does Hyp see the RAW, but he actually uses all such interpretations, inane though they may be, in his game. Maybe he does, but I don't recall him stating as such and frequently I see him saying, "This is the RAW, but I would play it..." much like you or I would do it.

Regardless, pointing out the RAW has benefits. Hopefully, people coming to this forum and others like it can decipher what parts of it should make it into their games, or not. To tie this into the current discussion, I know that some people might consider the improved grab on an AoO to be too powerful. If so, they have a RAW backing to not allow it. If not, houserule it away. But, the informed decision is a key element to making a better game for your group.

 

[Kapalen]

I read most of this thread but not all so sorry if this is already here.

An opposed grapple check follows a successful grab.

Once you grab someone, you must establish a hold, and you do that by making an opposed grapple check against your foe. The rules say the opposed grapple check that follows a successful grab is a free action for you, but it's really not an action at all. You make the grapple check as part of the attack you used to make the grab. Likewise, the opposed check your foe makes to resist you is not an action for him.

Straight from Skip Williams' All about Grappling Part One

 

[Caliban]

Maybe he does, but I don't recall him stating as such and frequently I see him saying, "This is the RAW, but I would play it..." much like you or I would do it.

I don't think I've ever seen him say that. Could you dig up a few quotes to support this?

He's usually pretty reluctant to comment on how he actually plays the game.

 

[Caliban]

Regardless, pointing out the RAW has benefits. Hopefully, people coming to this forum and others like it can decipher what parts of it should make it into their games, or not. To tie this into the current discussion, I know that some people might consider the improved grab on an AoO to be too powerful. If so, they have a RAW backing to not allow it. If not, houserule it away. But, the informed decision is a key element to making a better game for your group.

That's the problem. The "RAW ONLY" thinking forces you to decipher things because it overcomplicates matters. It doesn't really help you understand or play the game (which to me is the main point of this forum). Especially with the "If it ain't RAW it's a house rule" nonsense.

There can be more than one valid interpretation of the rules, and just because one doesn't happen to the most narrow application of RAW doesn't make it a house rule. That's just another way of dismissing anyone who tries to inject rational thought into the rules interpretation process (because if your calling it a house rule, your saying that discussing it doesn't belong in this forum).

Interpreting the rules involves more than just blind application of RAW. It involves common sense, and critical thinking skills to determine how the rules are meant to be applied. Like in this situation, where one section of the rules (grapples can be made as an AoO) overrides another part (it takes a free action to establish a Hold).

Not all the rules apply in every situation.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I don't think I've ever seen him say that. Could you dig up a few quotes to support this?

Not without a search function. But, yes I have seen it.

He's usually pretty reluctant to comment on how he actually plays the game.

Agreed that he's not forthcoming, but if asked he will tell (usually). Put it this way, everytime I've asked he told.

Your comments with the loaded words suggest that you take a very negative view of the word "houserule." I don't. Nor do most people. Why do you think that "houserule" is such a derogatory word? A houserule shouldn't be associated with negativity. It should be, "I understand the rules and choosing this interpretation will make a better game for our group."