wild shaped druid is an allosauros
he grapples a large gargoyle
Is it correct that the gargoyle can only attack back with a claw, and not his horn, gore, beard, or any body part he likes to strike with!!! and he can only do it once?
not looking for a list of all that grapple entails.
I think that all nat attacks are considered light so they can all be used in grapple remember that the creature being grappled does not need to make a grapple check every round so they are free to full attack but any attacks take a -2 unless they are attacking the person grappling them
Grappled gargoyle making full attack will make single claw attack and a regular bite and gore - grappled creature can't use both hands at the same time so one of the claw attacks will be negated. The gargoyle will also suffer -2 penalty to all attack rolls and CMB - including against creature that grappled them except CMB checks made to escape grapple, take control of the grapple.
thats what i thought originally....thats for input
|
Grappled gargoyle making full attack will make single claw attack and a regular bite and gore - grappled creature can't use both hands at the same time so one of the claw attacks will be negated. The gargoyle will also suffer -2 penalty to all attack rolls and CMB - including against creature that grappled them except CMB checks made to escape grapple, take control of the grapple.
Almost correct. The gargoyle can attack with both claws however. This is because each claw requires only one hand, which is all that the grappled condition requires.
I think the general rule is that the grappler makes a grapple check and does damage with the thing they grappled with (plus constrict, if they have it), and the grapplee gets to do a full attack (with normal attack rolls) so long as they don't use a two-handed weapon.
|
|
So the creature successfully making a grapple check loses all attacks bar one (unless it has a constrict or rake SA) while the failed grappler gets to make a full attack at -2 to each attack (maybe or maybe not against the grappler). That seems a good argument for not grappling ever.
J
Grapple archers and wizards, and there's no issue.
Grapple archers and wizards, and there's no issue.So the creature successfully making a grapple check loses all attacks bar one (unless it has a constrict or rake SA) while the failed grappler gets to make a full attack at -2 to each attack (maybe or maybe not against the grappler). That seems a good argument for not grappling ever.
J
Or barbarians. Barbarians are surprisingly fun to grapple, since they almost always have 2H weapons.
And never, ever, ever try to grapple a monk.
Grapple archers and wizards, and there's no issue.So the creature successfully making a grapple check loses all attacks bar one (unless it has a constrict or rake SA) while the failed grappler gets to make a full attack at -2 to each attack (maybe or maybe not against the grappler). That seems a good argument for not grappling ever.
J
Or barbarians. Barbarians are surprisingly fun to grapple, since they almost always have 2H weapons.
And never, ever, ever try to grapple a monk.
|
|
Grapple archers and wizards, and there's no issue.So the creature successfully making a grapple check loses all attacks bar one (unless it has a constrict or rake SA) while the failed grappler gets to make a full attack at -2 to each attack (maybe or maybe not against the grappler). That seems a good argument for not grappling ever.
J
Or barbarians. Barbarians are surprisingly fun to grapple, since they almost always have 2H weapons.
And never, ever, ever try to grapple a monk.
Every martial character I make wears a cestus, so I wouldn't grapple that barbarian if I were you.
Yes, even my NPCs have started to catch on; the smart BBEGs outfit their thugs with cesti or spiked gauntlets.
I like having beast totem just for this reason. Drop that two-hander and feel the fury of my claws!
grappling should be good in certain circumstances..... which its seems to be
attacked party with sea serpent on tuesday which has some lovely grab, constrict, swallow shizzle
So the creature successfully making a grapple check loses all attacks bar one (unless it has a constrict or rake SA) while the failed grappler gets to make a full attack at -2 to each attack (maybe or maybe not against the grappler). That seems a good argument for not grappling ever.
J
No, but it is a good argument for not trying to wrestle a heavily armed individual who is skilled in close combat!
Grapple is best done to people who aren't specialized in close-combat murder.
So the creature successfully making a grapple check loses all attacks bar one (unless it has a constrict or rake SA) while the failed grappler gets to make a full attack at -2 to each attack (maybe or maybe not against the grappler). That seems a good argument for not grappling ever.
J
No, but it is a good argument for preferring to grapple people who aren't specialized in close-combat murder.
A grappler can always end the grapple as a free action, though - so he can grapple the enemy through its turn, then let go and full attack on his own.
|
That seems a good argument for not grappling ever.
Grappling by non-grapplers always less than ideal.
For professional grapplers on Inner World Sea Wrestling Circuit, is good argument to improve own action economy to minimize exposure. Snapping Turtle Clutch, Greater Grapple & Rapid Grapple feats make Bruno flex with joy.