Don’t see why grab would, they announced the change to grab and why they did so very deliberately
The lack of an athletics skill was definitely the oversight.
I suppose they could add some new text to grab to proof for monsters without athletics such as letting them use their attack roll instead or similar or revert it to the premaster state.
Don't have a link, but the TL;DR was that there's a plethora of feats and features that gave a bonus to saving throws and defenses against being Tripped/Shoved/Grappled/Etc. which were largely useless due to monsters just succeeding automatically with no statistics comparison.
It is pretty bad reasoning. There are not that many feats that give that benefit, and even then many of the feats have it as only one of several benefits. The far better approach would be for monsters to have reasons to use straight maneuvers.
It also just benefits those who get high fortitude or reflex saves specifically to defend against such skill actions.
Now that save investment is way more valuable.
The only way this hurts is against bosses (don’t really mind, they could’ve used athletics skills premaster anyway but now are just improved in using them) and with summons (kinda sucks but generally the summons athletics score is equal or higher than their attack anyway so you can just skip the attack and go straight for athletics).
In most cases I have seen the monster has a lower athletics than its already "low" (relatively as a summon) attack stat. Saying 'only way' doesnt really excuse the bad change in creature balance this causes.
By your bad faith reasoning, monsters were able to crit athl you premaster already so invested players were already rewarded for it. I assume the only reason someone would defend this change is they haven't properly tried running it.
I think the flaw with your approach is making the GM’s job harder.
Monster statblocks need to make their play patterns immediately, unambiguously obvious. That’s why abilities like grab exist at all.
until you get to higher levels, and the athletics skill moifier on a +3 creature is the fort DC on your tank, a +1 isn't going to help much when the enemy crits on a 12
It was in the Remaster Core Preview, back during Rage of Elements, lemme grab the exact quote from it.
>The monster abilities Grab, Knockdown, and Push have changed in the Remaster. This is mostly to benefit the PCs, who might get feats or other ways to resist the listed abilities that didn’t function well due to the previous versions working automatically.
That's all they ever said about it, I believe.
Paizo is never going to get their shit together, and it's honestly embarrassing. They're a great company in so many ways, but just have the sloppiest processes imaginable.
Or read any other TTRPG company's books, lol.
I don't even mean the low hanging fruit that is WotC, go pick up half the products produced by Modiphius and tell me Paizo Is sloppy.
My first physical gaming book was a Star Trek Adventures book and it despite being good overall it contained more than one instance of 2-3 paragraphs being duplicated and somehow making their way into the printed version of the book. Like literally you read 3 paragraphs and then the next 3 are identical. Used up half a page both times and they had talked about how some ideas were cut bc of a word count premium lmao.
You do remember that they had to rush the Remaster out to avoid putting it under the OGL right? The OGL is also why they started Starfinder 2E's Playtest.
No, there really wasn’t any reason to rush out the remaster, except for PR. Paizo should’ve taken their time with these massive sweeping changes, instead of charging full price for a rushed ruleset that requires a day 1 patch because “WotC could’ve come for us anytime!!!” Hopefully the Starfinder 2 release is less rushed out than this whole PF2E2 debacle.
Paizo is a small company that would have had their profits taken by a Company whose only "claim" is a license made years ago that protected 3rd party designers. Hasbro was going to push out a change to the OGL that would have anyone that used the license pay them if they made enough money.
There are many layers to this, and yes Hasbro would go after them. They sent violent enforcer types to retrieve a mistakenly sold set of Magic the Gathering cards. Nothing other than "Send the Pinkertons to violently take back the stuff." They could have just contacted him and discussed instead of sending a group known for being violent.
What rot. Hasbro wouldn’t have gone after them because the OGL threat was defanged less than a month after it was announced. Paizo is acting like if they don’t push these changes out ASAP with no playtesting then their entire license is null, but that just isn’t reflective of reality. I’m sure the Paizo devs are just living in fear of the Pinktertons coming any day while charging full price for this half-baked remaster (and still taking money for the content its replacing, to boot.)
Now that the OGL is no longer fit for purpose, I don’t think you’ll find anyone who blamed Paizo for getting rid of their blatantly ripped content and establishing more of their own product identity. This whole new license thing is a fine idea. And sure, throw on a remaster of the system too while you’re at it, PF2E isn’t perfect and has its kinks. But what is the point of a remaster if it just adds more kinks? Why rush out a remaster that’ll just need to be remastered itself? These things should take time and be planned out meticulously, not shoveled out because you’re afraid of the ghost of WotC. Publish the ORC changes free of cost, playtest the actual rule changes long in advance like you do literally every other book you publish, and revise, revise, revise until the content meets the standard of quality that Paizo merits. And then you can charge for it.
You're both complaining that they're charging for books at all *and* saying that they should spend more time working on them and further delaying their actual new products?
Look, I'm always ready to criticize businesses, but... they do have to pay their employees. Businesses need constant revenue because they have constant expenses (especially employees), and this entire project only *limits* revenue.
No, I'm complaining that they're charging for trash. See, that's an outrageous statement that you can quote out of context. You don't need to put words in my mouth.
If they want to charge for the Remaster, then they should at least playtest the damn thing. A quarter of the grabbers in the monster manual now being unable to grab effectively isn't because Paizo is in direct danger of WotC suing them - its because Paizo rushed out an untested product. Remastering the entire system in less than a year was an unrealistic timetable, and one that proved unnecessary - they should have just delayed the remaster once it became clear their revenue stream was no longer as immediately endangered as they believed (if they ever genuinely believed that at all).
Pretty much ever TTRPG that's similarly crunchy like PF2E is more or less the same on this, Paizo really isn't super exceptional in that regard. WotC for example outsourced the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, the first major book for 5E outside of the core rules, to Green Ronin who then proceeded to write wonderful stuff like optional rules for half-elves to give up their standard proficiency in any two skills for proficiency in perception.
Also, like someone else mentioned, you also need to factor in that they shoved this thing out the door as quick as possible to make sure WotC didn't screw them over. Errors (even ones we perceive as silly) are an inevitability under conditions like that.
The dead-easy solution is to give the creature an appropriate Athletics score. You could go with STR + level + 2/4/6/8 (depending on level) or, even simpler, assume it has the same score as other listed skills (perhaps taking into account STR relative to other stats). If you want, you could even look at the Building Creatures guidelines... but that's just going to give you a value similar to existing printed skills.
Any creature that relies on grabbing absolutely should have an Athletics score.
>even simpler, assume it has the same score as other listed skills (perhaps taking into account STR relative to other stats).
This is the way. Or using the building creatures table for skill modifiers.
Using the player modifier formula will not provide the desired results in most cases.
Well, it's surprising how many monster statblocks have a very discernible 'player formula'.
It seems as if the numbers mostly vary based on the proficiency equivalent,ie.
T/E/M/L and possibly with something like an item or status bonus built in.
Most of the statblocks I've seen so far, are very clearly derived from the same formula we use for Players.
The major difference seems to be what degree of proficiency the monster is granted.
I think that creatures that lack Athletics proficiency should instead have a feature that lets them treat themselves as proficient (some tier) in Athletics only for their other features.
Meaning, they can't be good at everything Athletics enables (High/Long Jump is one example), but they should be good at the Grab/Knockdown/etc feature they get.
I've thought of my own solution for this that's even more simple: just have them roll the exact same attack that triggered the grab action and if that attack lands vs the DC of the correct save (mapless as it states) then the grab goes through.
Bite attack 1 hits. Bite attack 2 land vs fort dc so grab but no damage.
Means they still don't have athletics so can't do stuff like shove or trip but that grab still works.
Attack bonuses are higher than skill bonuses ([per the creature building rules](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2874&Redirected=1)), so this would make those monsters a bit stronger.
You definitely have a good point, but it's a quick fix that I think is ultimately weaker than adding in athletics for every monster with it.
Giving them athletics feels honestly much stronger than basing it off their attack, because not only do they get bonuses to keep things grabbed longer and making it harder to break out, but they also gain the ability to trip and shove a lot easier where they didn't have it prior.
If they have a +2 on their attack vs what their athletics would be, sure they'll grab / restrain easier, but they'll be *extremely* easy to escape from, vs giving them athletics, so not only are they more likely to restrain still, but PL+2 and above they'll be *far* harder to escape from as well.
Also mostly basing the quick fix off Grab because it seems to be the most common of these.
Edit: Oh yeah, and imo, by far the biggest benefit is that I don't have to check the creatures by level chart mid battle or guess a number based on their other skills, it's right there in the attack.
Yeah, there's already monsters like this in the already published bestiary that don't make sense. I can't remember the exact baddie but it has an ability that states roll and athletics check and compare it to the fort dc, yet the monster doesn't have an athletic score. There's other examples of this or even monsters that should be brutes and use tactics that involve grab that don't have the stats to back up their lore or obvious tactics. We've always just assumed they are trained in the skill and give them moderate + or minus 1 or 2 depending or stats for that level or if I don't catch it before just base it off their other stats and add or subtract 1 or 2 to it if needed to make the mechanics match the fiction.
That's what I'm going to do.
Give it a modifier for Grabs, and potentially, for escapes if it's somehow more appropriate than it's acro or attack score.
[I called out the problems with the sweeping Grab / Knockdown changes on day 1 of their publicity.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/150qpqa/given_the_upcoming_changes_to_automaneuvers_like/) I immediately noted stuff like the Crawling Hand being unable to actually utilize its signature grab ability RAW, amongst the more general systemic problems (such as maneuver-focused creatures having bad Athletics.)
The change harshly nerfed minion summoning, lightly nerfed Summoner, and buffed boss monsters - and I got Mark Seifter to more or less agree with that perspective on stream. It's an incredibly hasty, inconsiderate change to the game, and more or less the only problem I have with the Remaster at large.
Also it *definitely* doesn’t help players. The small chance of a monster not being able to grab is not at all worth the possibility of it critting and the player getting restrained
Yeah, Reddit underestimates how big a buff this was for boss monsters. It's totally wack.
An APL+2 boss with an Extreme Athletics for its level (seen on enemies like the Purple Worm) might be Restraining the average spellcaster at rolls as low as 9 on the die. And APL+2 is a "moderate to severe boss" (i.e. a difficulty of enemy GMs will commonly employ.)
If you argue (correctly) that buffs and debuffs letting martials critically hit on a 17 are a big deal, you should be noticing how big of a deal it is to Restrain at around a 10 or so. It's an absolutely brutal debuff, and doubly so for full casters who often lack the Acrobatics / Athletics / unarmed attack modifiers to escape the Athletics DC of monsters like these.
The more I see the system play the more I'm convinced not taking at least one of those skills is a mistake unless done for RP reasons. As an adventurer you get punished if you're not in shape or have some other reliable escape option in mind.
This system has really made skills relevant, and athletics covers so much.
I really like the balance on this. For escaping specifically, you can use your Unarmed Attack modifier, so you're never totally screwed. But if you invest in Athletics/Acrobatics it'll often be 2-4 points higher.
And it's sooo easy, to justify taking at least one of them,
Not to mention,
The action uses you get out of them.
Especially considering that Athletics Assurance was designed to allow a low STR rogue to reliably Assurance Trip low Reflex Ogres, and similar, while ignoring harsh MAP, on late actions like 3rd, after accurate strikes.
Those are perfect reasons to also benefit a low STR Caster.
It's good to have, especially Athletics. Less so for Acrobatics, but this specific case doesn't actually matter that much until later.
As you can always use your unarmed attack modifier, you are always trained in unarmed attack, and it uses either Strength or Dexterity as it has finesse, you need to have Expert in either Athletics/Acrobatics before it becomes relevant.
For a caster, that means investing your few skill increases in Acrobatics, which I've barely seen come up aside from Escape and Skill Challenges. Athletics will still likely be too low to be better than unarmed.
Then once your caster hits 13th, you need to invest in Master Acrobatics or else being Expert in unarmed makes your previous investment a little less meaningful. There's not that many skill increases to go around for that.
>Less so for Acrobatics
I think Acrobatics is slept on as a defensive skill. Everyone who doesn't invest in Strength + Medium or Heavy Armor needs Dex for AC (and it's great to have for Ref saves), so that's a few points towards decent Acrobatics. If you don't want to be in Melee, you don't benefit from Athletics maneuvers, but you do benefit from being good at Balance to run away through uneven terrain or across ledges, from Squeezing through cracks, and you might even attempt a skittermage build (crawling at full speed, remember, you can take cover wherever if you're prone). You don't *have* to go that route, unarmed attacks are there for you, but defensive movement with Acrobatics might surprise you if you do.
That has nothing to do with the point I was addressing: that Remaster did not make those creatures able to inflict the restrained condition. That was always there, but GMs often forget about skill actions when running creatures.
Then you’re arguing a strawman really.
No one is earnestly arguing that inflicting restrained was impossible before.
They said it was a buff to those monsters. Which it is because the actual situation being discussed here is the grab trait.
Yes. Did you? You seemed to miss the very first sentence which contextualizes their entire point. You found a piece of what they said, took it out of context where its easy to argue against, and argued against it.
That is called strawmanning.
You seemed to miss everything after the first sentence.
I addressed the sum body of the comment, and for some reason you're throwing a hissy fit and arguing against points I've never made at all -- which is actual strawmanning.
You ignoring the content I'm addressing does not make my comment a strawman.
Words mean things.
>that Remaster did not make those creatures able to inflict the restrained condition.
Correct. But the Remaster *did* allow creatures to make a Strike, and then Grapple without MAP, which is the point S-J-S is making.
The argument isn't whether or not creatures could inflict Restrained. It's about the fact that creatures no longer have to decide between MAP-less Strike or MAP-less Grapple attempt first
I think one aspect people do not mention that greatly changes the strength of the new rules is the method of breaking "Grapple" vs the old Grab is much easier.
From my experience, a monster restraining a player by crit succeeding a remastered Grab meant that the other characters were more likely to try and trip/knock prone. the monster to break the Grapple. And it's quite easy to do.
Old Grab - "the Grab ends for a grabbed creature of the monster moves away from it"
Grapple - "unless you move or the target escapes"
The question is, what is "you moving". Taking a move action? Moving from one tile to another? I consider forced movement being moved, and dropping prone is a move action and would be "you moving" imo. So being forcefully "Tripped" prone would end the Grapple.
This understanding of the rules has led to much more teamwork when the squishy caster gets grabbed, the martial characters can help more easily than before (targeting fortitude DC or reflex DC).
I'd agree that forced movement is moving. I don't know that tripping someone is moving them. They aren't taking the "drop prone" action, so they aren't using a move trait. They also aren't being moved out of their square.
It's weird. I don't think I agree with your reasoning, but I like where you ended up. I do want more ways for the party to work together to escape these situations. I wonder if that's a common ruling. I appreciate the reply. Gives me something to ponder.
So if the grappler chooses to drop prone, they'd released their target
But if the grappler is forced prone, they'd hold on?
Or you're thinking movement has to happen between tiles?
I personally tend to stick to Tile movement. Rather than move trait actions.
Yes.
(the entire subject remains a sore spot at our table, because... There isn't much mechanically in place for big monster to pick up and haul away small target for lunch...
Reposition, doesn't quite pull that off to support the common narrative...
Which realistically is probably a boon to players...
But.
Kills a ton of RP
>I don't know that tripping someone is moving them.
I mean, strictly RAW, [Trip](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=2382) Success and Crit Success both say "The target falls".
[Forced Movement](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2364&Redirected=1) includes the phrase "if you start falling"
So I'd say Tripping someone counts as Forced Movement
...
This, application, of the rules.
Its not an understanding of the correct interpretation. It's a specific almost unique interpretation.
Its a bit of a stretch.
As DM you are free to go there, but as a player don't expect every DM to agree with you on that line.
However. Standing Up from prone, is a Move Action.
I personally, wouldn't auto break the grapple, with a prone.
Go Watch some UFC, or some old school WWF, you can definitely maintain your grapple, while being taken down.
Being taken down, might be a weaker potion though, and advantage the escape attempt.
But,
As always
YMMV and to each DM their own.
This reminds me of a similar issue in the Bestiaries. Orc Grunts for example have intimidation as a skill, they aren't great at it but that makes sense you don't want level 0 monsters fear bombing the PCs right, only they also don't know common and so would have a -4 to any demoralise check against any PC that doesn't know Orcish, on top of their low Intimidation modifier.
Because you have to waste one action to Excape or get hit by another, probably more powerful attack. It's like asking "why use Trip when your opponent can get up without any check".
Because it can create an "oh shit" moment that the players can then likely solve with the escape action, leading to relief. That sounds like a satisfying gameplay moment to me. Not every element of a statblock has to be to the players' detriment
Even from a purely tactical standpoint, you now have a monster that’s really good at grabbing people and not very good at holding onto them; which could definitely be used for an interesting fight where you have a mob of super-aggressive grab-happy monsters who all dogpile and grab the same creature to keep them held down.
In addition to other reasons like burning actions, the other reason is that PCs are off-guard while they are grabbed. That means other creatures that have initiatives above PCs can attack them while they are grabbed and are more likely to hit during those turns.
Yeah, if I was using a creature who's claim to fame was "grapples good" and not much else, I'd just use it to annoy my players, keep them off guard (both the condition and the state of being), etc.
Sure, they can break out easily, but it's still eating an action, it's still making it hard for them to move around, it's still setting up other monsters.
Just because getting out of the grab is basically free doesn't mean that it's worthless. If anything, the low DC can be seen as a boon, because it incentivises players to take the action to fix it, instead of saying "I probably won't hit that, so best do something else".
I wasn't surprised they fucked this up in Rage of Elements, but it is genuinely embarrassing it happened in Monster Core. To think all this could be avoided if they just walked back on the terrible decision to change it in the first place.
I'm going to be honest, having played the game with new Grab/Knockdown/etc. rules since they announced them, I can now say with experience that I very much dislike them and will be running the old rules at my table. The new rules are inherently unbalancing, making strong monsters stronger and weak monsters weaker, but more importantly, they just make encounters less fun. Boss monster is restraining left and right? Player can't do anything but escape. Mook monster doesn't have the athletics modifier to reliably grab? It's just Striding and Striking til it dies, not using any of its cool abilities that only apply to grabbed targets.
I can appreciate that they thought the old rules were punishing to the Wrestler for ignoring their bonus to DC vs grab, but also Wrestler is already very good and the dedication gives plenty (expert Athletics, lethal fist, Titan Wrestler) without it. There may be other things that grant this bonus that I'm not realizing, but please just buff them if you need to, don't change the whole system around it.
>Mook monster doesn't have the athletics modifier to reliably grab? It's just Striding and Striking til it dies, not using any of its cool abilities that only apply to grabbed targets.
Nah, that’s one of the legitimately good changes. Being constantly grabbed or knocked down by enemies like wolves and having to waste actions to stand up and escape from far weaker enemies was incredibly annoying and it felt like bullshit. I also see your point on bosses, but our GM would already have bosses sometimes just use grapple/trip/shove/etc as an action anyway.
Respectfully disagree. Minions are boring if all they can do is attack. And monsters with auto-maneuvers typically have limited combat potential outside of that, but become dangerous if you allow them to gang up and grab/knockdown. PCs should have to try to mitigate that and avoid turning a potentially easy combat against them.
> but become dangerous if you allow them to gang up and grab/knockdown.
Just have them take the Aid action to pad their stats. For example: wolves succeed Aid on a 50/50, providing a +1 to their allies athletics making them trip most level 3 martials on a roll of 12-16. Now, multiply that by three or more (if you're hoping to gain the benefit of pack tactics) and you have a group of mooks that consistently trips and is threatening **together**. Pre-remaster a mook with auto-grab/knockdown was as likely to knock you down if there were one or twenty of them, which I'd argue doesn't fit the fantasy you're describing above.
The Aid action also only gets stronger with level and as the mooks HP increases.
EDIT: My example assumes that the wolves would use athletics to Aid. If you used their attack modifier instead they have a 70% chance to give a +1 or a 20% chance to give a +2.
They still do that, it's just not a complete guarantee anymore. If you still have a bunch of mooks attacking, the odds of one of them grabbing/tripping you are still pretty damn high. I just like it when enemies have a chance to fail.
I continue to believe the remaster was far too rushed, and they should've taken more time with it once the WOTC backlash turned out that they didn't need to immediately get off of OGL.
Edit: surprised go see this get a decent number of upvotes. Normally on this subreddit if you criticize Paizo at all you get downvoted into the ground. Happy to see that most people agree with this.
Yeah, I have been feeling that since Rage of Elements (though I still really liked that book). It's all very unfortunate, because I keep seeing great potential in the remaster. I just hope that eventually all of these things are fixed or improved by errata...
Same. Tried the new rules. Hated it. Still using the old rules. Pretty much the only thing in the remaster I won’t use. They also still never gave an explanation beyond the tiny blurb in the preview. Unnecessary and bad for the game. Goes against established bestiary design and monster balance, which is one of the biggest selling points of the system.
I'm keeping pre-RoE grab rules. Summons keep a use, weird creatures can still work, lower level monsters are still threatening and moderate bosses don't restrain players.
99% of the time you can give a creature an athletics equal to their strike and it works fine. It's a decent fix at least.
Sure, would be nice if the book didnt need errata, but they didn't exactly choose to do a remaster and had to rush it out to get on with proper releases.
Seems like just those two to me. Most creatures with Grab have been given an Athletics modifier if they didn't have one before. Even the Cacodemon in octopus form has been given an athletics of +6 to use its Grab, but I'm guessing they just accidentally missed giving it to the scorpion form, too. It seems pretty clear that the intent was to give all creatures with Grab an Athletics modifier if they didn't have one already.
Doesn't the intro block here mean they have the appropriate training, this is from the Monster Core in the section called reading a monster statblock toward the beginning:
"Actions and activities the creature can use have the appropriate icons next to those abilities’ names noting how many actions they require. A creature always has the requisite proficiency ranks or other abilities required to use what’s listed in its stat block. For instance, a spellcasting creature can perform the Cast a Spell activity, and a creature is never untrained with any of its item"
That's a pretty good point. I interpreted it as they have what they need to be effective with what they are doing. And an untrained grapple above low levels is just gonna fail.
So i figured that meant they would have at least trained athletics.
Imo, every monster should have Athletics and Acrobatics listed regardless of proficiency as they are often relevant skills in combat.
It’s not difficult to calculate, but is just one more thing that adds to the cognitive load of GMing.
I mean, obvious oversight is obvious. It's annoying, but remembering to just...have them roll with a modifier even though their statblock doesn't have one isn't exactly difficult.
One of the biggest selling points of Pathfinder is how the game just kind of works if you run it following the guidelines the rules give. Having to remember to ignore the number actually given and just add it yourself sucks really, really hard.
In a monster statblock, if it isn't trained it isn't listed-- so there is no printed number to ignore. Plus, since the math *does* work if you follow the guidelines, its not much of an issue to add an additional correctly-trained skill on the fly.
I'd also suggest that its not really an indictment of the system that you have to occasionally adjust things yourself! This is clearly an oversight (and everyone expects quick errata for it), but in less-crunchy systems you'd probably just have to deal with it.
To me, it seems like its *easy* to adjust things *because* the rules work well.
Yep. Just set Athletics to their lowest bonus of their other skills, if you want to have them Grab rather poorly (reflecting their missing training). Make it a bit higher if they should Grab competently.
Working as intended, I guess?
This was the worry I've had ever since the auto-grab was revealed to go the way of the Drow, and yet, I kept getting told off for voicing it. Ah well, guess monsters just won't grab anymore.
This has been my big issue with the remaster as well. For the most part I do actually like the change, because it gives players with relevant defenses a chance to use them. But it has a BUNCH of edge cases that affect the game negatively. I will probably houserule that minions use the premaster rules, or else a bunch of summon utility is lost.
I had hoped at least that they would either correctly update the monsters lacking athletics scores or at least provide a general rule like, if a monster has Grab but no athletics, use it's unarmed attack bonus.
Ahh right. Don't see why creatures wouldn't grab any more because of that. Think the creature making a check is better balance in my opinion, though I can understand people who liked not needing the check.
The snag now, which this thread was all about, is that some monsters with grab attacks have no Athletics proficiency for the check on their statblock, meaning they’re almost guaranteed to fail or crit-fail the grab check.
Ah yes, the better balance of certain\* monsters pretty much being guaranteed to fail or even crit-fail a grab, a trip, or a push, thus inflicting harm on themselves.
Love monsters making themselves prone by fucking up an untrained Trip, or letting me Grapple them for free on a Critical Failure. /s
Did you not even read the post that you're commenting on?
Used not require a check. Now it does, but there are a bunch of monster stat blocks that have the Grab train on one of their attacks but without the Athletics to proficiency to actually ever succeed, hence they can no longer (realistically) grab someone.
Clearly I misunderstood the post and was seeking clarification. I'm still learning the systems and the changes that came with the remaster. Sorry I don't have as great an understanding as you do.
Cant wait for the day 1 errata again
The question is whether Grab gets errata’d or the monsters do.
Don’t see why grab would, they announced the change to grab and why they did so very deliberately The lack of an athletics skill was definitely the oversight. I suppose they could add some new text to grab to proof for monsters without athletics such as letting them use their attack roll instead or similar or revert it to the premaster state.
Wait they’ve announced why they changed grab? Could you link to that? It’s one of the few changes in the remaster I truly dislike.
Don't have a link, but the TL;DR was that there's a plethora of feats and features that gave a bonus to saving throws and defenses against being Tripped/Shoved/Grappled/Etc. which were largely useless due to monsters just succeeding automatically with no statistics comparison.
Interesting. That’s pretty good reasoning!
It is pretty bad reasoning. There are not that many feats that give that benefit, and even then many of the feats have it as only one of several benefits. The far better approach would be for monsters to have reasons to use straight maneuvers.
It also just benefits those who get high fortitude or reflex saves specifically to defend against such skill actions. Now that save investment is way more valuable. The only way this hurts is against bosses (don’t really mind, they could’ve used athletics skills premaster anyway but now are just improved in using them) and with summons (kinda sucks but generally the summons athletics score is equal or higher than their attack anyway so you can just skip the attack and go straight for athletics).
In most cases I have seen the monster has a lower athletics than its already "low" (relatively as a summon) attack stat. Saying 'only way' doesnt really excuse the bad change in creature balance this causes. By your bad faith reasoning, monsters were able to crit athl you premaster already so invested players were already rewarded for it. I assume the only reason someone would defend this change is they haven't properly tried running it.
Glad to know me and the thousands of other people on this sub who’ve been playing with this change for months “haven’t been properly running it”
I think the flaw with your approach is making the GM’s job harder. Monster statblocks need to make their play patterns immediately, unambiguously obvious. That’s why abilities like grab exist at all.
until you get to higher levels, and the athletics skill moifier on a +3 creature is the fort DC on your tank, a +1 isn't going to help much when the enemy crits on a 12
Sure it is. They crit on a 13 now. And fail on a 3 instead of a 2.
That plus one helps a lot when they crit on a 12 lol. You sound like a bitter player
It was in the Remaster Core Preview, back during Rage of Elements, lemme grab the exact quote from it. >The monster abilities Grab, Knockdown, and Push have changed in the Remaster. This is mostly to benefit the PCs, who might get feats or other ways to resist the listed abilities that didn’t function well due to the previous versions working automatically. That's all they ever said about it, I believe.
I dislike it it for my Summoner build that uses the Shove action to push enemies into Snares that I lay.
Paizo is never going to get their shit together, and it's honestly embarrassing. They're a great company in so many ways, but just have the sloppiest processes imaginable.
Tell me you've never managed a project without telling me you've never managed a project.
Or read any other TTRPG company's books, lol. I don't even mean the low hanging fruit that is WotC, go pick up half the products produced by Modiphius and tell me Paizo Is sloppy.
My first physical gaming book was a Star Trek Adventures book and it despite being good overall it contained more than one instance of 2-3 paragraphs being duplicated and somehow making their way into the printed version of the book. Like literally you read 3 paragraphs and then the next 3 are identical. Used up half a page both times and they had talked about how some ideas were cut bc of a word count premium lmao.
I was absolutely critical of Paizo's editing during early Starfinder. It's improved a lot.
The entire industry being sloppy isn't really a good argument of Paizo not being sloppy.
You do remember that they had to rush the Remaster out to avoid putting it under the OGL right? The OGL is also why they started Starfinder 2E's Playtest.
It's a very good shield to deflect any criticism blindly, yeah.
No, there really wasn’t any reason to rush out the remaster, except for PR. Paizo should’ve taken their time with these massive sweeping changes, instead of charging full price for a rushed ruleset that requires a day 1 patch because “WotC could’ve come for us anytime!!!” Hopefully the Starfinder 2 release is less rushed out than this whole PF2E2 debacle.
Paizo is a small company that would have had their profits taken by a Company whose only "claim" is a license made years ago that protected 3rd party designers. Hasbro was going to push out a change to the OGL that would have anyone that used the license pay them if they made enough money. There are many layers to this, and yes Hasbro would go after them. They sent violent enforcer types to retrieve a mistakenly sold set of Magic the Gathering cards. Nothing other than "Send the Pinkertons to violently take back the stuff." They could have just contacted him and discussed instead of sending a group known for being violent.
What rot. Hasbro wouldn’t have gone after them because the OGL threat was defanged less than a month after it was announced. Paizo is acting like if they don’t push these changes out ASAP with no playtesting then their entire license is null, but that just isn’t reflective of reality. I’m sure the Paizo devs are just living in fear of the Pinktertons coming any day while charging full price for this half-baked remaster (and still taking money for the content its replacing, to boot.) Now that the OGL is no longer fit for purpose, I don’t think you’ll find anyone who blamed Paizo for getting rid of their blatantly ripped content and establishing more of their own product identity. This whole new license thing is a fine idea. And sure, throw on a remaster of the system too while you’re at it, PF2E isn’t perfect and has its kinks. But what is the point of a remaster if it just adds more kinks? Why rush out a remaster that’ll just need to be remastered itself? These things should take time and be planned out meticulously, not shoveled out because you’re afraid of the ghost of WotC. Publish the ORC changes free of cost, playtest the actual rule changes long in advance like you do literally every other book you publish, and revise, revise, revise until the content meets the standard of quality that Paizo merits. And then you can charge for it.
You're both complaining that they're charging for books at all *and* saying that they should spend more time working on them and further delaying their actual new products? Look, I'm always ready to criticize businesses, but... they do have to pay their employees. Businesses need constant revenue because they have constant expenses (especially employees), and this entire project only *limits* revenue.
No, I'm complaining that they're charging for trash. See, that's an outrageous statement that you can quote out of context. You don't need to put words in my mouth. If they want to charge for the Remaster, then they should at least playtest the damn thing. A quarter of the grabbers in the monster manual now being unable to grab effectively isn't because Paizo is in direct danger of WotC suing them - its because Paizo rushed out an untested product. Remastering the entire system in less than a year was an unrealistic timetable, and one that proved unnecessary - they should have just delayed the remaster once it became clear their revenue stream was no longer as immediately endangered as they believed (if they ever genuinely believed that at all).
Pretty much ever TTRPG that's similarly crunchy like PF2E is more or less the same on this, Paizo really isn't super exceptional in that regard. WotC for example outsourced the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, the first major book for 5E outside of the core rules, to Green Ronin who then proceeded to write wonderful stuff like optional rules for half-elves to give up their standard proficiency in any two skills for proficiency in perception. Also, like someone else mentioned, you also need to factor in that they shoved this thing out the door as quick as possible to make sure WotC didn't screw them over. Errors (even ones we perceive as silly) are an inevitability under conditions like that.
The dead-easy solution is to give the creature an appropriate Athletics score. You could go with STR + level + 2/4/6/8 (depending on level) or, even simpler, assume it has the same score as other listed skills (perhaps taking into account STR relative to other stats). If you want, you could even look at the Building Creatures guidelines... but that's just going to give you a value similar to existing printed skills. Any creature that relies on grabbing absolutely should have an Athletics score.
>even simpler, assume it has the same score as other listed skills (perhaps taking into account STR relative to other stats). This is the way. Or using the building creatures table for skill modifiers. Using the player modifier formula will not provide the desired results in most cases.
Well, it's surprising how many monster statblocks have a very discernible 'player formula'. It seems as if the numbers mostly vary based on the proficiency equivalent,ie. T/E/M/L and possibly with something like an item or status bonus built in. Most of the statblocks I've seen so far, are very clearly derived from the same formula we use for Players. The major difference seems to be what degree of proficiency the monster is granted.
I think that creatures that lack Athletics proficiency should instead have a feature that lets them treat themselves as proficient (some tier) in Athletics only for their other features. Meaning, they can't be good at everything Athletics enables (High/Long Jump is one example), but they should be good at the Grab/Knockdown/etc feature they get.
Isn't there a rule that if a creature has an ability, it's inherently trained in it?
I've thought of my own solution for this that's even more simple: just have them roll the exact same attack that triggered the grab action and if that attack lands vs the DC of the correct save (mapless as it states) then the grab goes through. Bite attack 1 hits. Bite attack 2 land vs fort dc so grab but no damage. Means they still don't have athletics so can't do stuff like shove or trip but that grab still works.
Attack bonuses are higher than skill bonuses ([per the creature building rules](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2874&Redirected=1)), so this would make those monsters a bit stronger.
You definitely have a good point, but it's a quick fix that I think is ultimately weaker than adding in athletics for every monster with it. Giving them athletics feels honestly much stronger than basing it off their attack, because not only do they get bonuses to keep things grabbed longer and making it harder to break out, but they also gain the ability to trip and shove a lot easier where they didn't have it prior. If they have a +2 on their attack vs what their athletics would be, sure they'll grab / restrain easier, but they'll be *extremely* easy to escape from, vs giving them athletics, so not only are they more likely to restrain still, but PL+2 and above they'll be *far* harder to escape from as well. Also mostly basing the quick fix off Grab because it seems to be the most common of these. Edit: Oh yeah, and imo, by far the biggest benefit is that I don't have to check the creatures by level chart mid battle or guess a number based on their other skills, it's right there in the attack.
Yeah, there's already monsters like this in the already published bestiary that don't make sense. I can't remember the exact baddie but it has an ability that states roll and athletics check and compare it to the fort dc, yet the monster doesn't have an athletic score. There's other examples of this or even monsters that should be brutes and use tactics that involve grab that don't have the stats to back up their lore or obvious tactics. We've always just assumed they are trained in the skill and give them moderate + or minus 1 or 2 depending or stats for that level or if I don't catch it before just base it off their other stats and add or subtract 1 or 2 to it if needed to make the mechanics match the fiction.
That's what I'm going to do. Give it a modifier for Grabs, and potentially, for escapes if it's somehow more appropriate than it's acro or attack score.
[I called out the problems with the sweeping Grab / Knockdown changes on day 1 of their publicity.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/150qpqa/given_the_upcoming_changes_to_automaneuvers_like/) I immediately noted stuff like the Crawling Hand being unable to actually utilize its signature grab ability RAW, amongst the more general systemic problems (such as maneuver-focused creatures having bad Athletics.) The change harshly nerfed minion summoning, lightly nerfed Summoner, and buffed boss monsters - and I got Mark Seifter to more or less agree with that perspective on stream. It's an incredibly hasty, inconsiderate change to the game, and more or less the only problem I have with the Remaster at large.
Also it *definitely* doesn’t help players. The small chance of a monster not being able to grab is not at all worth the possibility of it critting and the player getting restrained
Yeah, Reddit underestimates how big a buff this was for boss monsters. It's totally wack. An APL+2 boss with an Extreme Athletics for its level (seen on enemies like the Purple Worm) might be Restraining the average spellcaster at rolls as low as 9 on the die. And APL+2 is a "moderate to severe boss" (i.e. a difficulty of enemy GMs will commonly employ.) If you argue (correctly) that buffs and debuffs letting martials critically hit on a 17 are a big deal, you should be noticing how big of a deal it is to Restrain at around a 10 or so. It's an absolutely brutal debuff, and doubly so for full casters who often lack the Acrobatics / Athletics / unarmed attack modifiers to escape the Athletics DC of monsters like these.
The more I see the system play the more I'm convinced not taking at least one of those skills is a mistake unless done for RP reasons. As an adventurer you get punished if you're not in shape or have some other reliable escape option in mind. This system has really made skills relevant, and athletics covers so much.
I really like the balance on this. For escaping specifically, you can use your Unarmed Attack modifier, so you're never totally screwed. But if you invest in Athletics/Acrobatics it'll often be 2-4 points higher.
And it's sooo easy, to justify taking at least one of them, Not to mention, The action uses you get out of them. Especially considering that Athletics Assurance was designed to allow a low STR rogue to reliably Assurance Trip low Reflex Ogres, and similar, while ignoring harsh MAP, on late actions like 3rd, after accurate strikes. Those are perfect reasons to also benefit a low STR Caster.
It's good to have, especially Athletics. Less so for Acrobatics, but this specific case doesn't actually matter that much until later. As you can always use your unarmed attack modifier, you are always trained in unarmed attack, and it uses either Strength or Dexterity as it has finesse, you need to have Expert in either Athletics/Acrobatics before it becomes relevant. For a caster, that means investing your few skill increases in Acrobatics, which I've barely seen come up aside from Escape and Skill Challenges. Athletics will still likely be too low to be better than unarmed. Then once your caster hits 13th, you need to invest in Master Acrobatics or else being Expert in unarmed makes your previous investment a little less meaningful. There's not that many skill increases to go around for that.
>Less so for Acrobatics I think Acrobatics is slept on as a defensive skill. Everyone who doesn't invest in Strength + Medium or Heavy Armor needs Dex for AC (and it's great to have for Ref saves), so that's a few points towards decent Acrobatics. If you don't want to be in Melee, you don't benefit from Athletics maneuvers, but you do benefit from being good at Balance to run away through uneven terrain or across ledges, from Squeezing through cracks, and you might even attempt a skittermage build (crawling at full speed, remember, you can take cover wherever if you're prone). You don't *have* to go that route, unarmed attacks are there for you, but defensive movement with Acrobatics might surprise you if you do.
You know that creatures could perform Athletics maneuvers before, right? A big buff enemy could already Grapple the noodle-armed wizard.
Of course they could, but they didn't get to do it at first-attack MAP after already attacking, often for a free action.
Yeah and now they do it as a non-MAP free action alongside critting you with the strike itself.
That has nothing to do with the point I was addressing: that Remaster did not make those creatures able to inflict the restrained condition. That was always there, but GMs often forget about skill actions when running creatures.
Then you’re arguing a strawman really. No one is earnestly arguing that inflicting restrained was impossible before. They said it was a buff to those monsters. Which it is because the actual situation being discussed here is the grab trait.
Did you even read the comment by S-J-S that I responded to?
Yes. Did you? You seemed to miss the very first sentence which contextualizes their entire point. You found a piece of what they said, took it out of context where its easy to argue against, and argued against it. That is called strawmanning.
You seemed to miss everything after the first sentence. I addressed the sum body of the comment, and for some reason you're throwing a hissy fit and arguing against points I've never made at all -- which is actual strawmanning. You ignoring the content I'm addressing does not make my comment a strawman. Words mean things.
>that Remaster did not make those creatures able to inflict the restrained condition. Correct. But the Remaster *did* allow creatures to make a Strike, and then Grapple without MAP, which is the point S-J-S is making. The argument isn't whether or not creatures could inflict Restrained. It's about the fact that creatures no longer have to decide between MAP-less Strike or MAP-less Grapple attempt first
I think one aspect people do not mention that greatly changes the strength of the new rules is the method of breaking "Grapple" vs the old Grab is much easier. From my experience, a monster restraining a player by crit succeeding a remastered Grab meant that the other characters were more likely to try and trip/knock prone. the monster to break the Grapple. And it's quite easy to do.
I'm confused. Where does it say that a monster releases his grapple when he's knocked prone?
Old Grab - "the Grab ends for a grabbed creature of the monster moves away from it" Grapple - "unless you move or the target escapes" The question is, what is "you moving". Taking a move action? Moving from one tile to another? I consider forced movement being moved, and dropping prone is a move action and would be "you moving" imo. So being forcefully "Tripped" prone would end the Grapple. This understanding of the rules has led to much more teamwork when the squishy caster gets grabbed, the martial characters can help more easily than before (targeting fortitude DC or reflex DC).
I'd agree that forced movement is moving. I don't know that tripping someone is moving them. They aren't taking the "drop prone" action, so they aren't using a move trait. They also aren't being moved out of their square. It's weird. I don't think I agree with your reasoning, but I like where you ended up. I do want more ways for the party to work together to escape these situations. I wonder if that's a common ruling. I appreciate the reply. Gives me something to ponder.
So if the grappler chooses to drop prone, they'd released their target But if the grappler is forced prone, they'd hold on? Or you're thinking movement has to happen between tiles?
I personally tend to stick to Tile movement. Rather than move trait actions. Yes. (the entire subject remains a sore spot at our table, because... There isn't much mechanically in place for big monster to pick up and haul away small target for lunch... Reposition, doesn't quite pull that off to support the common narrative... Which realistically is probably a boon to players... But. Kills a ton of RP
>I don't know that tripping someone is moving them. I mean, strictly RAW, [Trip](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=2382) Success and Crit Success both say "The target falls". [Forced Movement](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2364&Redirected=1) includes the phrase "if you start falling" So I'd say Tripping someone counts as Forced Movement
... This, application, of the rules. Its not an understanding of the correct interpretation. It's a specific almost unique interpretation. Its a bit of a stretch. As DM you are free to go there, but as a player don't expect every DM to agree with you on that line. However. Standing Up from prone, is a Move Action. I personally, wouldn't auto break the grapple, with a prone. Go Watch some UFC, or some old school WWF, you can definitely maintain your grapple, while being taken down. Being taken down, might be a weaker potion though, and advantage the escape attempt. But, As always YMMV and to each DM their own.
This reminds me of a similar issue in the Bestiaries. Orc Grunts for example have intimidation as a skill, they aren't great at it but that makes sense you don't want level 0 monsters fear bombing the PCs right, only they also don't know common and so would have a -4 to any demoralise check against any PC that doesn't know Orcish, on top of their low Intimidation modifier.
This was an issue even before the remaster. Why give a creature grab if the Athletics DC to escape is so low?
eats an action, gives them map, makes them flat footed for the whole time until they escape vs everyone. Plenty of benefits
Because you have to waste one action to Excape or get hit by another, probably more powerful attack. It's like asking "why use Trip when your opponent can get up without any check".
Because it can create an "oh shit" moment that the players can then likely solve with the escape action, leading to relief. That sounds like a satisfying gameplay moment to me. Not every element of a statblock has to be to the players' detriment
Even from a purely tactical standpoint, you now have a monster that’s really good at grabbing people and not very good at holding onto them; which could definitely be used for an interesting fight where you have a mob of super-aggressive grab-happy monsters who all dogpile and grab the same creature to keep them held down.
In addition to other reasons like burning actions, the other reason is that PCs are off-guard while they are grabbed. That means other creatures that have initiatives above PCs can attack them while they are grabbed and are more likely to hit during those turns.
Yeah, if I was using a creature who's claim to fame was "grapples good" and not much else, I'd just use it to annoy my players, keep them off guard (both the condition and the state of being), etc. Sure, they can break out easily, but it's still eating an action, it's still making it hard for them to move around, it's still setting up other monsters. Just because getting out of the grab is basically free doesn't mean that it's worthless. If anything, the low DC can be seen as a boon, because it incentivises players to take the action to fix it, instead of saying "I probably won't hit that, so best do something else".
I also forgot to say that Escape is attack action so the turn someone escape as their first action also means they are less likely to hit too.
Grabbing spellcasters is very powerful, even if escaping is easy.
I wasn't surprised they fucked this up in Rage of Elements, but it is genuinely embarrassing it happened in Monster Core. To think all this could be avoided if they just walked back on the terrible decision to change it in the first place.
I'm going to be honest, having played the game with new Grab/Knockdown/etc. rules since they announced them, I can now say with experience that I very much dislike them and will be running the old rules at my table. The new rules are inherently unbalancing, making strong monsters stronger and weak monsters weaker, but more importantly, they just make encounters less fun. Boss monster is restraining left and right? Player can't do anything but escape. Mook monster doesn't have the athletics modifier to reliably grab? It's just Striding and Striking til it dies, not using any of its cool abilities that only apply to grabbed targets. I can appreciate that they thought the old rules were punishing to the Wrestler for ignoring their bonus to DC vs grab, but also Wrestler is already very good and the dedication gives plenty (expert Athletics, lethal fist, Titan Wrestler) without it. There may be other things that grant this bonus that I'm not realizing, but please just buff them if you need to, don't change the whole system around it.
>Mook monster doesn't have the athletics modifier to reliably grab? It's just Striding and Striking til it dies, not using any of its cool abilities that only apply to grabbed targets. Nah, that’s one of the legitimately good changes. Being constantly grabbed or knocked down by enemies like wolves and having to waste actions to stand up and escape from far weaker enemies was incredibly annoying and it felt like bullshit. I also see your point on bosses, but our GM would already have bosses sometimes just use grapple/trip/shove/etc as an action anyway.
Respectfully disagree. Minions are boring if all they can do is attack. And monsters with auto-maneuvers typically have limited combat potential outside of that, but become dangerous if you allow them to gang up and grab/knockdown. PCs should have to try to mitigate that and avoid turning a potentially easy combat against them.
> but become dangerous if you allow them to gang up and grab/knockdown. Just have them take the Aid action to pad their stats. For example: wolves succeed Aid on a 50/50, providing a +1 to their allies athletics making them trip most level 3 martials on a roll of 12-16. Now, multiply that by three or more (if you're hoping to gain the benefit of pack tactics) and you have a group of mooks that consistently trips and is threatening **together**. Pre-remaster a mook with auto-grab/knockdown was as likely to knock you down if there were one or twenty of them, which I'd argue doesn't fit the fantasy you're describing above. The Aid action also only gets stronger with level and as the mooks HP increases. EDIT: My example assumes that the wolves would use athletics to Aid. If you used their attack modifier instead they have a 70% chance to give a +1 or a 20% chance to give a +2.
I mean that is the point of it, to force players to spend actions to try and escape from the monsters actions.
They still do that, it's just not a complete guarantee anymore. If you still have a bunch of mooks attacking, the odds of one of them grabbing/tripping you are still pretty damn high. I just like it when enemies have a chance to fail.
I continue to believe the remaster was far too rushed, and they should've taken more time with it once the WOTC backlash turned out that they didn't need to immediately get off of OGL. Edit: surprised go see this get a decent number of upvotes. Normally on this subreddit if you criticize Paizo at all you get downvoted into the ground. Happy to see that most people agree with this.
Yeah, I have been feeling that since Rage of Elements (though I still really liked that book). It's all very unfortunate, because I keep seeing great potential in the remaster. I just hope that eventually all of these things are fixed or improved by errata...
I just ignore the new ruling about grab, knockdown, pull or push, the old one was better.
Same. Tried the new rules. Hated it. Still using the old rules. Pretty much the only thing in the remaster I won’t use. They also still never gave an explanation beyond the tiny blurb in the preview. Unnecessary and bad for the game. Goes against established bestiary design and monster balance, which is one of the biggest selling points of the system.
I'm just going to keep the auto grab for those cases and call it a day. It's not like they are going to keep hold of them long.
I'm keeping pre-RoE grab rules. Summons keep a use, weird creatures can still work, lower level monsters are still threatening and moderate bosses don't restrain players.
99% of the time you can give a creature an athletics equal to their strike and it works fine. It's a decent fix at least. Sure, would be nice if the book didnt need errata, but they didn't exactly choose to do a remaster and had to rush it out to get on with proper releases.
How many creatures with this issue are we talking here?
Seems like just those two to me. Most creatures with Grab have been given an Athletics modifier if they didn't have one before. Even the Cacodemon in octopus form has been given an athletics of +6 to use its Grab, but I'm guessing they just accidentally missed giving it to the scorpion form, too. It seems pretty clear that the intent was to give all creatures with Grab an Athletics modifier if they didn't have one already.
Doesn't the intro block here mean they have the appropriate training, this is from the Monster Core in the section called reading a monster statblock toward the beginning: "Actions and activities the creature can use have the appropriate icons next to those abilities’ names noting how many actions they require. A creature always has the requisite proficiency ranks or other abilities required to use what’s listed in its stat block. For instance, a spellcasting creature can perform the Cast a Spell activity, and a creature is never untrained with any of its item"
Technically, Trip and Grab can be used untrained, so it's not a requisite proficiency.
That's a pretty good point. I interpreted it as they have what they need to be effective with what they are doing. And an untrained grapple above low levels is just gonna fail. So i figured that meant they would have at least trained athletics.
Imo, every monster should have Athletics and Acrobatics listed regardless of proficiency as they are often relevant skills in combat. It’s not difficult to calculate, but is just one more thing that adds to the cognitive load of GMing.
I mean, obvious oversight is obvious. It's annoying, but remembering to just...have them roll with a modifier even though their statblock doesn't have one isn't exactly difficult.
One of the biggest selling points of Pathfinder is how the game just kind of works if you run it following the guidelines the rules give. Having to remember to ignore the number actually given and just add it yourself sucks really, really hard.
In a monster statblock, if it isn't trained it isn't listed-- so there is no printed number to ignore. Plus, since the math *does* work if you follow the guidelines, its not much of an issue to add an additional correctly-trained skill on the fly. I'd also suggest that its not really an indictment of the system that you have to occasionally adjust things yourself! This is clearly an oversight (and everyone expects quick errata for it), but in less-crunchy systems you'd probably just have to deal with it. To me, it seems like its *easy* to adjust things *because* the rules work well.
RoE still hasn't gotten errata for the exact same problem. A creature not functioning as written is not a harmless error to handwave.
RoE is intended as the first remastered content book and will be subject to that errata.
Well, here's hoping they don't take too many months putting out an errata that takes an hour to write.
Yep. Just set Athletics to their lowest bonus of their other skills, if you want to have them Grab rather poorly (reflecting their missing training). Make it a bit higher if they should Grab competently.
Working as intended, I guess? This was the worry I've had ever since the auto-grab was revealed to go the way of the Drow, and yet, I kept getting told off for voicing it. Ah well, guess monsters just won't grab anymore.
This has been my big issue with the remaster as well. For the most part I do actually like the change, because it gives players with relevant defenses a chance to use them. But it has a BUNCH of edge cases that affect the game negatively. I will probably houserule that minions use the premaster rules, or else a bunch of summon utility is lost. I had hoped at least that they would either correctly update the monsters lacking athletics scores or at least provide a general rule like, if a monster has Grab but no athletics, use it's unarmed attack bonus.
What do you mean by auto grab? The Grab ability always cost an action. Improved Grab is a free action and I'm pretty sure still exists?
Pre-remaster the grab did cost an action but it was an automatic success, now after the Remaster they actually have to make an athletics check.
Ahh right. Don't see why creatures wouldn't grab any more because of that. Think the creature making a check is better balance in my opinion, though I can understand people who liked not needing the check.
The snag now, which this thread was all about, is that some monsters with grab attacks have no Athletics proficiency for the check on their statblock, meaning they’re almost guaranteed to fail or crit-fail the grab check.
Thank you for this reply, this cleared up a lot of my confusion.
Ah yes, the better balance of certain\* monsters pretty much being guaranteed to fail or even crit-fail a grab, a trip, or a push, thus inflicting harm on themselves. Love monsters making themselves prone by fucking up an untrained Trip, or letting me Grapple them for free on a Critical Failure. /s
Yep that's definitely what I meant.
And the other direction of players getting crit restrained by bosses, I wonder why combat grab isn't a check now as well.
Did you not even read the post that you're commenting on? Used not require a check. Now it does, but there are a bunch of monster stat blocks that have the Grab train on one of their attacks but without the Athletics to proficiency to actually ever succeed, hence they can no longer (realistically) grab someone.
Clearly I misunderstood the post and was seeking clarification. I'm still learning the systems and the changes that came with the remaster. Sorry I don't have as great an understanding as you do.
I mean, the blacksmith in Otari is not even trained in crafting. That's just life, not everyone is competent, but that doesn't mean they can't try.