Monk Grapple AoO

[Caliban]

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

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."

The way I've seen it used in this forum is generally negative. As in "You could rule it that way, but it would be a house rule and so doesn't belong in this forum." Or in othe words: "My way is right, your way is a just house rule."

An alternate (yet valid) interpretation is not a house rule. A house rule is when you knowingly change the rules. I don't accept that anything that is not the most narrow version of RAW is a house rule.

The core rules are not a technical document. The writers do not always define their terms in a formal way, and even when they do have a formal definition of a game term, they will still sometimes use the more general meaning instead of the game defined meaning. That's one of the reasons that those who insist on RAW only in this forum can obfuscating the issue instead of helping achieve an understanding of the rules.

Back in the early days of these forums I was one of the big rules guru's, and focused a lot on the text. But the text only takes you so far, as the rules don't cover all the little edge cases that are brought up all the time here. The rules are written for the most common scenarios you will find in a game, and are not a perfect model of reality (or even fantasy reality).

 

[Infiniti2000]

An alternate (yet valid) interpretation is not a house rule. A house rule is when you knowing change the rules. I don't accept that anything that is not the most narrow version of RAW is a house rule.

Well, we agree on that. I realize that some people view the word "houserule" as negative but IME it's from people who get told that their interpretation is, in fact, a houserule. In some cases, it's also unfortunately used as a type of logical fallacy: an appeal to ridicule. I don't condone or defend such tactics, however, and I do my best not to use them myself. Even if calling someone's interpretation isn't meant as an appeal to ridicule, it is unfortunately often taken as such. More importantly, however, houserules don't belong in this forum but whether or not something is a houserule does belong here. It has been noted as such by the mods.

Note that in this case I had to change my opinion. I agree with Hyp that allowing someone to maintain the grapple on an AoO is not per the rules. It doesn't mean that I'll use that in my game because I won't, but the distinction is an important one to note should I ever play in another game. 99.9% of the people out there might play it the same, but understanding that a problem could exist is a benefit to everyone involved.

 

[cmanos]

I support the 'grapple check as part of the initial action' argument. It seems very very very silly to be able to make a grapple attempt as an attack of opportunity but not be able to actually grapple the guy. Really now...you can grab him, but you can't hold on to him because it isn't your turn? Hyp, by the RAW you are correct, but I think the RAW are flawed in many more ways than this.


Also, by the RAW, you can't talk when it isn't your initiative.....

According to the Rules of the Game article on Actions, part 4,

Initially in a grapple, you grab your foe as an attack action; all the opposed grapple checks you make after that to resolve the grapple attempt are nonactions for you and for your opponent. Because you grapple as a melee attack, you can initiate a grapple as an attack of opportunity.

If you begin your turn with a foe in your grasp (or vice versa), your initial grapple check to affect your foe (or escape) is an attack action and the check your foe makes to resist you is a nonaction.

Furthermore, the Rules of the Game article on All About Grappling, Part 1 states (Emphasis mine)

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.

This is not in the errata. Its in a supplemental explanation of the rules, which in the past has not been interpreted the way many people would like. That being said. it makes more sense than saying, 'you can grab someone as an attack of opportunity, but you can't hold them as that's a free action, and such can only be done on your turn.' You can be a lawyer or a judge, I go for the judge.

 

[Krelios]

RAW gives you flaming weapons that you don't need to activate in order to do the fire damage.

RAW forces you to keep track of the exact square a creature was summoned in, no matter how far it moves, in case someone wants to dispel the creature by including that square.

RAW means that the Blink spell makes you both ethereal and incorporeal.

RAW means that you can't use Resist Energy on yourself more than once to gain resistance to multiple energy types.

I was agreeing with you in interpreting the Grapple on AoO rules in a way that makes sense despite what some consider the RAW to say, until you made this post.

1) No.
2) No.
3) So what?
4) No.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

the free action is part of the grapple attempt, grapple can be done as part of an AoO, so this free aciton to finalize the grapple can be done as part of the AoO.

I have spoken.

So shall it be done.

 

[Caliban]

I was agreeing with you in interpreting the Grapple on AoO rules in a way that makes sense despite what some consider the RAW to say, until you made this post.

1) No.
2) No.
3) So what?
4) No.

All of those have been held up as RAW on this forum. I did not say that this is how I read the rules, they are examples of why blind adherence to RAW is a bad thing.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Also, by the RAW, you can't talk when it isn't your initiative.....

Sure you can: "In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn. Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action."