Multiple attacks with Grab


Rules Questions


3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required.

If a monster [Xill] with multiple attacks, attacks with all 4 claws and hits with more than 1, does it get multiple Grabs [grapple attempts] or just 1?

If it gets more than 1, during the following round can it make the same number of "maintain the grapple" attempts?

And if it can, and is successful on the first attempt, can it use the remaining claws to ravage the poor dude it's grappling or only one?


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
stuart haffenden wrote:
If a monster [Xill] with multiple attacks, attacks with all 4 claws and hits with more than 1, does it get multiple Grabs [grapple attempts] or just 1?

It gets one free action grapple for each claw hitting with a melee attack.

stuart haffenden wrote:
If it gets more than 1, during the following round can it make the same number of "maintain the grapple" attempts?

No. It is still a standard action to maintain a grapple (or a move action with iproved grapple).

stuart haffenden wrote:
And if it can, and is successful on the first attempt, can it use the remaining claws to ravage the poor dude it's grappling or only one?

Attacking with more than one attack is a full-round action, so the answer is no.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
stuart haffenden wrote:

If a monster [Xill] with multiple attacks, attacks with all 4 claws and hits with more than 1, does it get multiple Grabs [grapple attempts] or just 1?

If it gets more than 1, during the following round can it make the same number of "maintain the grapple" attempts?

And if it can, and is successful on the first attempt, can it use the remaining claws to ravage the poor dude it's grappling or only one?

1. One grab attempt per claw hit. As soon as one succeeds though, it need not make any more.

2. No. One maintain per turn, as a standard action.

3. This is debatable, but it is my ruling that they are able. Nothing about 'starting' a grapple for free with grab indicates that their remaining attacks are forfeit as soon as the grapple starts. On future rounds where they must spend a standard action to maintain, certainly. On the first round when they have already spent the full attack action to make all their attacks? If they succeed on the first grab check, it is fine that they keep going.

On a note, technically the attacks on that first round following the grapple would suffer a -2 to the attack roll (as the creature is now 'Grappled') but as their target also has a -4 to Dexterity (-2 to AC) then the penalty is essentially negated in that case.

Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys

asknethys@karuikage.net

Sovereign Court

It is more efficient for a monster with multiple attacks and the grab ability to just make full attacks and NOT maintain grapples. Why?

grabber's 1st round: attack (free grab), grapple is sucessful, attack -2, etc.

opponent's turn: tries to break grapple as standard action.

grabber's 2nd round: DOES NOT MAINTAIN grapple, makes a full attack action instead... attack (free grab), grapple is sucessful, attack -2, etc.

As shown above, it's better to make FREE grapple checks via the grab ability and keep pumping damage via multiple attacks, because chances are, the opponent WILL be grappled again next round, regardless of him escaping on his turn or not... :)

Scarab Sages

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

It is more efficient for a monster with multiple attacks and the grab ability to just make full attacks and NOT maintain grapples. Why?

grabber's 1st round: attack (free grab), grapple is sucessful, attack -2, etc.

opponent's turn: tries to break grapple as standard action.

grabber's 2nd round: DOES NOT MAINTAIN grapple, makes a full attack action instead... attack (free grab), grapple is sucessful, attack -2, etc.

As shown above, it's better to make FREE grapple checks via the grab ability and keep pumping damage via multiple attacks, because chances are, the opponent WILL be grappled again next round, regardless of him escaping on his turn or not... :)

It depends on the CMB to Attack bonus ratio. Some defender's have a MUCH lower CMD than AC (most casters, for example). In this instance, it tends to be more efficient to just grab the caster and not let go, using CMB vs. CMD checks each round to do damage instead of attack bonus vs. AC.

Though you are right, in most cases it tends to be better to just wail on the opponent instead of grab them. I could see grabbing being beneficial in the above case, or if the person is using a big 2-handed weapon, or maybe a few other scenarios.

Sovereign Court

Karui Kage wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

It is more efficient for a monster with multiple attacks and the grab ability to just make full attacks and NOT maintain grapples. Why?

grabber's 1st round: attack (free grab), grapple is sucessful, attack -2, etc.

opponent's turn: tries to break grapple as standard action.

grabber's 2nd round: DOES NOT MAINTAIN grapple, makes a full attack action instead... attack (free grab), grapple is sucessful, attack -2, etc.

As shown above, it's better to make FREE grapple checks via the grab ability and keep pumping damage via multiple attacks, because chances are, the opponent WILL be grappled again next round, regardless of him escaping on his turn or not... :)

It depends on the CMB to Attack bonus ratio. Some defender's have a MUCH lower CMD than AC (most casters, for example). In this instance, it tends to be more efficient to just grab the caster and not let go, using CMB vs. CMD checks each round to do damage instead of attack bonus vs. AC.

Though you are right, in most cases it tends to be better to just wail on the opponent instead of grab them. I could see grabbing being beneficial in the above case, or if the person is using a big 2-handed weapon, or maybe a few other scenarios.

Yes, you are right... I guess a caster's low BAB, combined with potential low STR and low DEX, ADDED to the fact that armor and shield bonii don't increase CMD... all this makes for a poor CMD.

HOWEVER, it then makes it even BETTER for a multiple attack creature to just attack and NOT maintain grapple, as he is almost 100% sure to re-grapple the caster next round when he hits and make his free grab attempt. The only caveat being a high level caster with Foresight spell on, which would "tell" the caster that the creature intends to "release and attack" instead of "maintaining the bear hug"... in which case the caster could ready an action to cast teleport as soon as the creature release the grapple at the beginning of its turn... :)


With my initail example creature, a Xill, I think I'd go with letting go [free action] each turn and then attacking with all 4 hands [+grab]. If I'm lucky I'll get in a bite with paralysis too!


stuart haffenden wrote:
With my initail example creature, a Xill, I think I'd go with letting go [free action] each turn and then attacking with all 4 hands [+grab]. If I'm lucky I'll get in a bite with paralysis too!

I would recommend that as well.

Sovereign Court

Nethys wrote:
stuart haffenden wrote:

If a monster [Xill] with multiple attacks, attacks with all 4 claws and hits with more than 1, does it get multiple Grabs [grapple attempts] or just 1?

If it gets more than 1, during the following round can it make the same number of "maintain the grapple" attempts?

And if it can, and is successful on the first attempt, can it use the remaining claws to ravage the poor dude it's grappling or only one?

1. One grab attempt per claw hit. As soon as one succeeds though, it need not make any more.

2. No. One maintain per turn, as a standard action.

3. This is debatable, but it is my ruling that they are able. Nothing about 'starting' a grapple for free with grab indicates that their remaining attacks are forfeit as soon as the grapple starts. On future rounds where they must spend a standard action to maintain, certainly. On the first round when they have already spent the full attack action to make all their attacks? If they succeed on the first grab check, it is fine that they keep going.

On a note, technically the attacks on that first round following the grapple would suffer a -2 to the attack roll (as the creature is now 'Grappled') but as their target also has a -4 to Dexterity (-2 to AC) then the penalty is essentially negated in that case.

Aren't the creatures in a grapple only penalized to others outside the grapple?

Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys

asknethys@karuikage.net


This spell seems to have changed my opinion on some things.

Please note the last sentence.

Lockjaw
School transmutation; Level druid 2, ranger 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (sticky tree gum)
Range touch
Target creature touched
Duration 1 round/level
Saving Throw Fortitude negates (harmless); Spell Resistance
yes (harmless)
You give a creature the ability to use one of its natural
attacks to firmly attach itself to an opponent. Choose one of
the creature’s natural attacks (usually a claw or bite attack).
The creature gains the grab ability with that natural attack,
including the +4 bonus on combat maneuver checks to start
or maintain a grapple. A creature with multiple natural attacks
can strike at its grappled opponent with its other natural
attacks, but cannot attack any other creature.

I would apply that last sentence to all creatures with grab and multiple attacks.
Seems to make sense.


I would´n´t.
Multi-tentacled abominations lashing out and ensnaring multiple innocents (and heroic PCs) at the same time is a major trope of the game... I´d rather not arbitrarily reduce multi-attack Grab creatures to a single target once they´ve Grabbed one creature. Heck, Greater Grapple lets a regular old Halfling attack one opponent while Grappling another one. That this spell (which ¨locks¨ you onto your target) has that function but normal Grab doesn´t is fine by me.

If I´d change anything about Grappling, it would be to allow it in place of any attack, i.e. as AoO´s or within a Full Attack.


Quandary wrote:

I would´n´t.

Multi-tentacled abominations lashing out and ensnaring multiple innocents (and heroic PCs) at the same time is a major trope of the game... I´d rather not arbitrarily reduce multi-attack Grab creatures to a single target once they´ve Grabbed one creature. Heck, Greater Grapple lets a regular old Halfling attack one opponent while Grappling another one. That this spell (which ¨locks¨ you onto your target) has that function but normal Grab doesn´t is fine by me.

If I´d change anything about Grappling, it would be to allow it in place of any attack, i.e. as AoO´s or within a Full Attack.

Yeah, come to think of it, i would ammend it to allow a creature with multiple attacks to make multiple grab attempts at the end of each attack.

Otherwise where would the heroic fun of a kraken attacking a ship while pulling its' passengers off be?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Grabbing multiple people at once is exactly what the -20 option is for.


Ravingdork wrote:
Grabbing multiple people at once is exactly what the -20 option is for.

Maybe.

As for me, I thought that rule was for failing to grab multiple enemies at once. Something has to be very, very optimized at grappling to apply a -20 and still have a reasonable chance to successfully grapple CR-appropriate opponents with any significant chance of success.

Oh, sure, grabbing the weak wizard in the back, yeah, that's fairly easy even with the -20. But getting any combat-oriented tough guy, even a rogue, and hanging onto him, requiring two successful CMB rolls at -20 to effectively establish and maintain the grapple. That's long odds unless the creature is grappling a weak enemy.

Sovereign Court

Ravingdork wrote:
Grabbing multiple people at once is exactly what the -20 option is for.

I know this is a Rabbit Season/Duck Season thing where Bugs and Daffy shout at each other for entire threads, but I interpreted the -20 to be for eliminating the grappled condition from the grappler so they don't suffer penalties and can still take attacks of opportunity while grappling one or more people.

What I can't decide is whether the grab equivalent of maintaining a grapple acts the same as the core rules description for a grapple(which assumes things like humanoid form, two hands, etc), meaning that you can grab several people if you get to start each grapple for free(with the grappled condition applying penalties to your attacks and grab attempts after the first successful one), but when the next round rolls around, it costs a standard action to maintain ONE of those grapples that you started as free actions the turn before.

Another DM suggested to me that in the case of maintaining grab as opposed to maintaining grapple, it should be a standard action to maintain as many as you were able to successfully start in the previous round. Since it prevents you from maintaining and attacking in the same round, it doesn't seem unbalanced to me. I just wish the grab write-up was more clear.

If the general rule is going to be to treat it exactly like grappling except where noted, it's still not terribly clear since every attack can attempt a grab for free when a grapple check would ordinarily replace an entire standard action...which makes it seem like making the grab preempts all other actions and attacks. Maybe it seems like my logic is starting to pretzel itself, but a lack of clearly spelled out rules and developer-favored interpretation leads to Rabbit Season/Duck Season arguments on boards and at game tables.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've reread this thread and a few others and I am beginning to think that I may have been mistaken in my previous post.


Resurrecting this thread. Better than starting a brand new one I guess :)

I'm learning to DM Pathfinder and I find grab attacks a little confusing.

Take something simple, like a Grizzly Bear (pg.31 B1)

Its attacks are as follows:

Melee 2 claws +7(1d6+5 plus grab), bite +7(1d6+5)

CMB is +9 (+13 with grapple)

Question 1: If this Grizzly does a full round attack it claws twice, and bites once. Does each claw get a grab attempt if they hit different targets? Or do both claws have to hit the same target?

Question 2: The bear has something grappled via grab. On the creatures turn it doesn't escape. Next turn the bear could maintain the grapple as a standard action, but doing so would only yield 1d6+5 damage via grab rules... but it would have +13vs CMD instead of +7vs AC to do this. Why would the bear do this though? It seems it would be better to end the grapple as a free action, then full round attack for another 2claws and bite with the potential for 3d6+15 damage, triple what maintaining a grapple would yield.

For creatures like the Xill mentioned above that has even more attacks on a full round attack; it seems obvious that it would absolutely NOT want to maintain only a single grapple.

It almost appears that monsters with "grab" on attacks would never maintain a grapple unless they also have constrict.


Each claw gets a grab attempt.

When a creature does not escape a grapple on the first chance it gets the the grappler(person in control of the grapple) gets a +5 bonus to the grapple check so the bear would have a +18. That +5 is not added to the CMD though, and neither is the +4 from grab.

A bear would not grab, and release IMHO because it is not smart enough to use that strategy. Grappling is not always a good idea. Smart creature would be more likely to assess the situation than animals would, and take a logical approach.


So more than likely the bear would fight like normal until it had something grappled.

Then each round after it would maintain the grapple with +18 and only deal 1d6+5 damage until creature it had grappled was unconscious/dead.

Played like that it hardly feels like the creature is CR4. Though I agree this is most likely what a bear would do. At least until it felt like the three other creatures around it were much more of a threat.


Now if the bear was surrounded or outnumbered in melee I can see it foregoing the grapple since even animals in the wild won't concentrate on one foe if they are outnumbered, but if someone engages the bear in melee before anyone else is in the bear's threat range I can see it going for the grapple.


wraithstrike wrote:
Now if the bear was surrounded or outnumbered in melee I can see it foregoing the grapple since even animals in the wild won't concentrate on one foe if they are outnumbered, but if someone engages the bear in melee before anyone else is in the bear's threat range I can see it going for the grapple.

Agreed. It just seems to me that a monster with multiple attacks and GRAB, but not CONSTRICT or SWALLOW WHOLE would never maintain the grab (grapple).

I just finished talking to one of my friends who has DM'd 3.5 and Pathfinder much more than I have. He mentioned this part of Grab:

Quote:
The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself.

I read the "or simply use" part of that as a free action.

So the bear could simply use its claw at a total of -2 to maintain the grapple and then still claw and bite something. Or a more extreme example, it could have two things grappled, one in each claw, and maintain both at -2 and bite something else or one of the grappled creatures. Granted the bear is at dice -2 and a normal level 1 or 2 PC would be at dice - dice +5. So it is much more likely that the PC wouldn't be grappled anymore.

CMD 9 (+13 grapple granted by grab, +5 circumstance bonus to maintain grapple on creature that didn't escape) total +18.

This is purely what the rules allow, not what the bear might or might not actually do.


Your interpretation is correct in that it is part of that free action, but you made one error. That is a -20, not a -2. That is why that option is almost never used.

The bear can also only make one check to maintain a grapple which is a standard action so even if it grappled two people it would have to let one of them go on the next round.


wraithstrike wrote:

Your interpretation is correct in that it is part of that free action, but you made one error. That is a -20, not a -2. That is why that option is almost never used.

The bear can also only make one check to maintain a grapple which is a standard action so even if it grappled two people it would have to let one of them go on the next round.

Hmmmm. You have me confused now. It is a free action at -20 to the CMB check. So if the bear has +18 CMB to maintain a grapple on a target who didn't escape, he would only then be at -2 to maintain the grapple.

So as you said it was a free action why could it not maintain the grapple on two targets at -2 and also bite someone?


Sorry I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying the -20 penalty to grapple without being grappled yourself is only a -2 penalty. That is my error.

As to maintaining a grapple, that is not a free action.
Grab allows you a free action to start grapple when certain attacks hit, but maintaining is a standard action.

Since a grapple is an attack you must choose a target(victim 1 or victim 2) when you turn comes back up. Whoever you choose to grapple might be restrained if you can maintain the grapple, but the other person is let go.


prd wrote:
Although both creatures have the grappled condition, you can, as the creature that initiated the grapple, release the grapple as a free action, removing the condition from both you and the target. If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold.


Wow... I searched more threads about this and it's a complete cluster...

To me :

Quote:
The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself.

means that it can maintain any grapple as a free action at -20 and not be grappled in turn.

It seems rather absurd that a creature with 8 attacks (all having the grab modifier) can attack eight different targets on the same round, grappling them all with grab... Then on the next turn it completely forgets that it's a big bad monster with 8 tentacles that can all crush the life out of creatures... instead it can only concentrate on grappling and crushing the life out of one creature.

That is the main reason why I think it is a free action.

We really need a ruling from Paizo on what they intend for monsters with multiple attacks with grab WITHOUT constrict or swallow whole.


It appears that they would then want creatures with multiple attacks with grab to attack, grapple via grab, hold grapple 'till start of turn then release and attack the same as it did before.

Seems a little retarded to me. Once you have something grappled why would you let it go just to grapple it again...


Sorry I was gone for so long but grab does not allow maintaining for free. When you choose to take the -20 it applies on the maintain check.

Quote:
Grab (Ex) If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. Unless otherwise noted, grab can only be used against targets of a size equal to or smaller than the creature with this ability. If the creature can use grab on creatures of other sizes, it is noted in the creature's Special Attacks line. The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself. A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature's descriptive text).

Note that the text above only says you can start a grapple as a free action. That is important because normally it is a standard action.

Maintaining is also a standard action, and a completely different rule. In order to be able to maintain as a free action there would have to be a sentence that calls out such a possibility.

The next bolded area is concerning the option to try to grapple, but not become grappled if you accept the -20 penalty, but that is all it gives you. At no point does it state you get the benefit of maintaining as a free action.


Oh yay this again.

Can someone link the last 100 page thread on this topic so we don't have to have the same arguments over again that still lead to no firm conclusions? Might save everyone involved some time.


What do you mean this again?

I have seen threads on grappling, whether or not the grapple+constrict+release as a free action to get 9(or however many a squid can get) constrict attempts in one round is RAI, but I have never seen anyone try to say that maintaining is a free action or that the grapple condition stacks.


Yar!

I'm a necromancer!

Now on to the reason or this: perhaps my search-fu is failing me this morning (It is early and I am underslept)... but the first post has been marked "Staff response: no reply required."

Where is the Staff response?

*curious*

~P


Pirate wrote:
Where is the Staff response?

The staff response is that no reply is required. Changing the flag is the response.

What that means is up for debate. I think it generally means either the flag-switcher feels the question was adequately answered in the thread, or that it's just not something they're going to rule on either way.


Yar!

Grick wrote:
Pirate wrote:
Where is the Staff response?

The staff response is that no reply is required. Changing the flag is the response.

What that means is up for debate. I think it generally means either the flag-switcher feels the question was adequately answered in the thread, or that it's just not something they're going to rule on either way.

*satisfied*

Also what I get for trying to think before I'm fully awake. ^_^

~P

Liberty's Edge

Pirate wrote:

Yar!

Grick wrote:
Pirate wrote:
Where is the Staff response?

The staff response is that no reply is required. Changing the flag is the response.

What that means is up for debate. I think it generally means either the flag-switcher feels the question was adequately answered in the thread, or that it's just not something they're going to rule on either way.

*satisfied*

Also what I get for trying to think before I'm fully awake. ^_^

~P

Note that: "Staff response: no reply required." is on the first post of the thread and it is valid only for that post.

So it is in reply to:
"If a monster [Xill] with multiple attacks, attacks with all 4 claws and hits with more than 1, does it get multiple Grabs [grapple attempts] or just 1?

If it gets more than 1, during the following round can it make the same number of "maintain the grapple" attempts?

And if it can, and is successful on the first attempt, can it use the remaining claws to ravage the poor dude it's grappling or only one?",
not to the other questions/flags on the thread.

And The Grandfather gave the replies to those questions.
The problem that the big tentacled monster get shafted by the grapple rules still stand.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Multiple attacks with Grab All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.