| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Say a Big Cat. Animal Companion. 7th level.
One bite and Two Claws. Assume the bite and one claw attack hit.
Does this mean he gets two attempts to Grapple?
Or, if all three attacks hit would he get three attempts to Grapple?
Also, on the next round I know (if he maintains his Grapple) he gets the Rake attack. Is there any extra damage from the original attack that initiated the grapple. Say it was a bite from round one; does he get to roll the damage for the continued bite?
Thanks for the clarification.
If they hit you get three attempts to *Initiate* a grapple.
And yes you do extra damage with the attack that initiated for every subsequent successful check to maintain the grapple no matter what you do (move, pin, damage, etc.)
The_Scourge, you are partly incorrect.
And yes you do extra damage with the attack that initiated for every subsequent successful check to maintain the grapple no matter what you do (move, pin, damage, etc.)
The bolded portion is the incorrect part.
Upon a successful check to maintain the grapple you have several options:
Move
Damage
Pin
Tie Up (if pinned already)
If you do not take the Damage option you cannot do damage with the bodypart that initiated the grapple (such as a Tiger's bite).
To use the big cat example:
A Dire Tiger has grappled a deer with it's bite. On the next round it successfully maintains the grapple check. It may now either move, damage, or pin the deer. It choses to drag the deer off and is thus unable to do bite damage to that deer (this round).
It is debatable whether or not it can rake and move. The text on rake does not specify that it requires you to choose the damage option. A strict reading would be that yes, you move and then you also rake. A common sense reading is that the rake is part of the damage option. *shrugs*
- Gauss
There's nothing to support that.
Grab States
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).
bolded is mine. If you choose the damage option you deal damage for grab AND from choosing that option.
Wow. Looks like the Big Cat is the way to go for Animal Companion.
Are there any creatures that are immune to grapple? Incorporeal, sure. Creatures bigger than yourself.
Anyone else?
It really is.
Immune, short of Freedom of Movement not totally. Even being bigger just makes you harder to grapple.
Liberating command, grease etc. help with escaping, but you still have to beat their CMD to escape.
all of the tiger's normal attacks (bite, 2 claws) can trigger a grab. a lion only has grab on bite.
the animal companion stats don't make that clear because they just list the SQ grab
instead of following the normal attack format (e.g. claw 1d8+6 plus grab) used in the Bestiary,
but since AC's are loosely based on the real creature stats, we can use those...
although you have to choose which is more balanced, tiger-style or lion-style (since they use the same stats for ACs)
...i would say lion-style is the more conservative and appropriate, since it's a really powerful ability.
it's already added to the Core Rule Book Errata thread, so hopefully they fix it.
re: Rake, I don't think it works exactly like the above posters seem to think it works:
In addition to the options available to all grapplers, a monster with the rake ability gains two free claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe. The bonus and damage caused by these attacks is included in the creature's description. A monster with the rake ability must begin its turn already grappling to use its rake—it can't begin a grapple and rake in the same turn.
These are extra attacks, that you can think of 'appearing' in the animals' stat block for melee attacks, when the conditions are met: beginning it's turn already grappling. Since you start out the round Grappling, you qualify for these attacks... You don't need to have succeeded on a Grapple/Maintain on the round you use them, if you start the round Grappled (whether controller or controlled), the Rake attacks are available to use.
These are not 'free attacks' on top of a Grapple check, but are used like any other attack... In other words, to use them you will want to Full Attack the Grappled target... NOT Maintain the Grapple (for Damage, or otherwise). This is most people's advice for Grab monsters with multiple attacks, since it gives you multiple chances to re-initiate the Grapple WHILE doing lots of damage (especially with Rake). The bonus Rake Claw attacks DON'T have the Grab ability on them, though.
If for some reason you DID really want to Maintain a Grapple, you could do so, although there is no reason that must be the first action you must take in the round... The rules merely say that you must do so SOME TIME during your turn (or Readied for some time later in the Round): If you had the Greater Grapple Feat, you could make a Standard Attack, then Maintain as a Move Action (for Pin, or Damage using Nat Attack dmg, Move the target, etc) ...Or vice versa (the order of the actions doesn't matter). But if you do this, then you aren't going to have a Full Attack to use all your attacks (Bite, 2xClaw, 2xRakeClaws).
It is listed in the grapple rules on CRB page 200.
Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple).
The following actions are:
MoveDamage
Pin
Tie Up
Your section is about constrict, which is a special ability and not relevant to grapple or grab as a whole.
First, make the grapple check. Then choose which action to make. If you do not choose the damage action then you are not going to do damage with a grapple.
- Gauss
Quandry: Actually you do need to make the check first thing.
If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold.
If your first action is not a maintain check then you have by default released the target.
Rake (when not used on a pounce) must be made against a grappled target. Not just a target you started the turn grappling with.
Rake (Ex) A creature with this special attack gains extra natural attacks under certain conditions, typically when it grapples its foe. In addition to the options available to all grapplers, a monster with the rake ability gains two free claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe. The bonus and damage caused by these attacks is included in the creature’s description. A monster with the rake ability must begin its turn already grappling to use its rake—it can’t begin a grapple and rake in the same turn.
It does not need to use a full-round action to perform a rake (as part of a grapple). It states this is part of a special option available when it makes a maintain grapple check.
- Gauss
Edit: With most multiattack creatures it is better to release and regrapple. With the tiger or dire tiger it is better to remain grappled as you will do the same number of attacks (3) grappled or full round attack (with no charge). Note: I include the automatic damage when you make your grapple check as part of one of those attacks.
Check my link again. That's right from Grab. Saying if you constrict you deal constrict damage as well as grab damage. If you do not constrict (whic can only happen if you don't Have constrict) you only do grab damage.
As far as Rake goes this:
In addition to the options available to all grapplers, a monster with the rake ability gains two free claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe.
I can see is being interpreted either way. Free could imply you get those as a free action on top of whatever you do to maintain the grapple but I could also see it being interpreted as Quandary says.
Also: you can't rake on a pounce. You need to be maintaining, not initiating.
A monster with the rake ability must begin its turn already grappling to use its rake—it can’t begin a grapple and rake in the same turn.
Quandry: Actually you do need to make the check first thing.
If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold.If your first action is not a maintain check then you have by default released the target.
Rake (when not used on a pounce) must be made against a grappled target. Not just a target you started the turn grappling with.
Well, I disagree.
It says you must make a maintain check 'each round'. Nothing about doing so at the start of your turn.If I do so at the end of my turn, that is still the same round. The creature IS still grappled until I have failed to fulfill the conditions, namely Maintain the Grapple on this Round (/Turn). It would have been very easy to write the rules so they worked like you describe... but that wasn't done.
All that is happening in my reading is that when it comes to the Tiger's turn (who had initiated the Grapple on it's previous turn), it has pretty much the same options you do AFTER you've been Grappled by somebody else (except it cares about maintaining/pinning instead of reversing/escaping): if it wants to, it can do whatever else it wants (full attack, try to cast a spell) while suffering the penalties/limitations of the Grappled condition. As the controller, you CAN drop the Grapple (from both yourself and the target) as a free action as the first action of your turn, but you don't HAVE to.
Rake (Ex) A creature with this special attack gains extra natural attacks under certain conditions, typically when it grapples its foe. In addition to the options available to all grapplers, a monster with the rake ability gains two free claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe. The bonus and damage caused by these attacks is included in the creature’s description. A monster with the rake ability must begin its turn already grappling to use its rake—it can’t begin a grapple and rake in the same turn.It does not need to use a full-round action to perform a rake (as part of a grapple). It states this is part of a special option available when it makes a maintain grapple check.
Well, that's absolutely untrue... 'Maintain' is NOWHERE in that quote, nor a reference to a specific Grapple check.
If these are going to be free events tacked onto a check, shouldn't it MENTION that check?The attacks apply to a grappled foe who was grappled when you begin your turn... As I said, that condition is even fulfilled when YOU are Grappled (controlled) by somebody else, e.g. Hercules the Grappler tries to manhandle a Lion. A Grapple continues until you fail to do a Maintain check during your turn... so you have your entire turn before the Grapple expires.
...If you look at the RAW, it's NOT saying those 'free claw attacks' are triggered during a Grapple/Maintain action, but that you can use them VS. A GRAPPLED FOE. So, there is no special 'free' way to use them, you just have these extra Claw attacks... Meaning the way to use multiple Natural Attacks is going to be via the Full Attack Action.
Also: you can't rake on a pounce. You need to be maintaining, not initiating.
nothing about maintain. your target needs to already be grappled at the beginning of your turn.
that can be because THEY initiated a grapple against you, and now your turn's coming up.which makes sense, grappling a lion/tiger doesn't seem like a walk in the park.
EDIT: you definitely CAN rake on a pounce, because the rules for pounce specifically say if you have rake, it applies on a pounce :-)
...which IMHO furthers my reading of the rake attacks, i.e. that they work like other Nat Attack within a Full Attack,
NOT bonus events stacked on top of a Grapple check: you can totally fail the Grab check on a Pounce and still get the Rake attacks.
Also: you can't rake on a pounce. You need to be maintaining, not initiating.nothing about maintain. your target needs to already be grappled at the beginning of your turn.
that can be because THEY initiated a grapple against you, and now your turn's coming up.
which makes sense, grappling a lion/tiger doesn't seem like a walk in the park.
A situation I didn't consider. But my point still stands about pounce.
Edit after your edit: My mistake.
The_Scourge:
I did not say it was in the rules on constrict. I said that section (ie: sentance) is ABOUT constrict. The section of grab you quoted was dealing with constrict (at least in part). You cannot ignore the entirety of the grapple rules that grab uses.
Quandry:
Actually it is it says 'in addition to the options available to all grapplers'. Those options were part of my quote regarding grapple. Yes, if the tiger is on the recieving end it does not need to make a maintain check. This discussion was about the tiger as the instigator, not the recipient of a grapple.
As the recipient if it is grappled on its turn it may indeed make a full-round attack including rake. That would be 5 attacks. Note: nobody in their right mind will grapple a creature that can turn the tables on them like that.
As for maintaining it at the beginning or not. Fine, but if you perform any other standard or full-round action besides maintaining it (as the instigator) then you are NOT maintaining it and thus you are not grappled.
So if the Tiger is the instigator:
Tiger makes grapple check to maintain. Now it can do damage (bite or claw) and rake IF successful.
So if the Tiger is NOT the instigator:
Tiger can make a full-attack including rake attacks.
Quandry, you were correct that I did not 'fully' state the rules because I did not account for the 'recipient' side. But again, the discussion was the tiger as instigator, not recipient of a grapple.
- Gauss
it can’t begin a grapple and rake in the same turn.
I don't know where this confusion about letting an opponent go and grappling them again to do a rake is coming from when it says you can't in the rules. The exception is a pounce, but you can't pounce on a grappled foe because there's no room to do another pounce.
Ragnarok Aeon:
That does not affect the round it pounces. (Nor is it in the CRB.)
Edit1: The last sentance was posted before your edit.
Edit2: As for your statement about confusion. Some people believe that they can make a full attack BEFORE deciding not to maintain the grapple.
Following assumes the Tiger instigated the grapple.
(I think) They believe:
Start of round grappled
Make full attack (including rake)
Release grapple (Free action)
I believe:
Start of round grappled
Make maintain check (assume success)
Use damage option to perform damage with body part grappling
Make rake attacks as special option
The problem is, the moment you decide to use a standard or full-round action other than for maintaining, you are no longer maintaining the grapple. You have given up that option.
- Gauss
The_Scourge:
I did not say it was in the rules on constrict. I said that section (ie: sentance) is ABOUT constrict. The section of grab you quoted was dealing with constrict (at least in part). You cannot ignore the entirety of the grapple rules that grab uses.
- Gauss
The general rule about rules is Specific Trumps General. Always has been.
The general grapple rules are indeed changed when grab gets involved.
Lets just post the whole thing here shall we:
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.
No problem here.
The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply to 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.
Here's where things get sticky, because this:
A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack.
is refering to the previous paragraph. Otherwise the whole thing makes no sense.
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).
Here we see that without constrict it deals the damage that established the hold (bite or claw in the case of our Tiger) but if it was say, a Giant constrictor snake, it would deal its bite damage as well as its constrict.
Creatures with grab receive a +4 bonus on combat maneuver checks made to start and maintain a grapple.
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 rest is once again n problem.
You see where I'm coming from now?
The_Scourge:
I am unsure where our disagreement is. What you just posted I do not disagree with.
Do you agree or disagree with the following. If disagree please state your version.
Round 1:
Make attack (assume success)
Apply damage
If you have grab with that limb make grappple check (assume success)
If you have constrict, apply constrict damage
Round 2+:
Make grapple check to maintain (assume success)
Apply damage from limb (that is grappling)
If you have constrict apply damage from constrict
If you have rake, make rake attacks
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I can definitely understand why you read it the way you do Gauss ('options' wording, etc),
it just fails to convey all the info needed to achieve that IMHO.
I'm glad you understand that the wording 'gains extra natural attacks under certain conditions' really does mean that you 'have' those natural attacks in the same sense that you have any other, and can use them per normal rules... e.g. Full Attack (particularly when the Grapple was initiated by somebody else).
I definitely understand where you are coming from with the idea of 'if you perform a Standard/Full Action that isn't Maintain, that drops the Grapple (because you can't Maintain it at that point), but I don't think it's that simple... Until your turn is over (or the round, technically), we DON'T actually know that you can't Maintain the Grapple. If you have Greater Grapple you can Maintain as a Move Action... even after FAILING a Standard check to Maintain ...And you don't have to decide between a Full Attack/Standard until AFTER the first attack is succesful... which can re-establish a Grapple via Grab. And ultimately, what is possible is open ended: bonus Move Actions, and even Standard Actions are not 'impossible'. Since the ultimate requirement is 'you must make a check each round', having your round/turn expire without having made said check is just the logical 'cut off' for Grapple to expire.
re:
I really don't know how to take that line... the part after the '-' is evidently meant to explain or re-iterate the first part... yet certainly in cases where something else initiated a grapple vs. the tiger, the two 'sides' can easily come into conflict with each other... And since AFAIK there is no particular 'order' you need to make your natural attacks in, I dont' see why one couldn't start the round grappled, decide to make the Rake attacks FIRST, and then make attacks with Bite/Claw which have Grab, and succeed on the Grab: 'beginning a Grapple', which 'can't happen on the same turn' - yet they easily can.
IMHO, there is definitely things that could be cleared up/ Errata'd with this section,
the 2nd half of that last quote definitely seems to be problematic.
Gauss seems to be with me on the idea of what can happen when the Tiger responds after being Grappled, and that they should be able to use Rake, and so I'm rather inclined to ignore the problematic 2nd part of that quote which seemingly can create a Paradox when you try to Grab after Raking in the same round.
PLEASE FAQ this post, I think a FAQ/Errata is the only ultimate 'solution' here...
What monsterhas Rake and Constrict? Is that really a relevant scenario to discuss?
I mean, maybe one DOES, but how did that become relevant here?
Quandry:
I think you are making it more complicated than it needs to be. If you have an ability that changes the maintain check to a move then of course my statement would include a move. The POINT is that the moment you choose not to maintain it by burning all available actions that could be used to maintain it then you are NOT maintaining it.
No, the rules do not say 'when' a maintain action is required. The rules also do not say that dead people cannot act. They do not say a bunch of things.
Grapple based Rake requires two things: That you start the round grappling AND that you are CURRENTLY grappling. IF you are the instigator and you do not make a grapple check to maintain, you are NOT grappling. It really is that simple.
The problem with the 'paradox' is that you are actually creating it since you are not performing the maintain action first. THAT is what creates the paradox.
Anyhow, the rules do not explicitly state it, you are welcome to play as you like. In my games, if you do not use your maintain action first..you are not maintaining. I believe a number of people run it that way.
Regarding 'rake and constrict'. It was an example because if I do not include BOTH things in my examples (note I kept using 'if') than people will tear my examples apart. Like you did because I did not include a Tiger on the recieving end (even though that was never part of this discussion).
- Gauss
Round 1:
Make attack (assume success)
Apply damage
If you have grab with that limb make grappple check (assume success)
If you have constrict, apply constrict damageRound 2+:
Make grapple check to maintain (assume success)
Choose option from grapple list (move pin etc.)
Apply result
Apply damage from limb (that is grappling) (due to grab)
If you have constrict apply damage from constrict
If you have rake, make rake attacks- Gauss
My additions are bolded
You deal damage from grab no matter what you do when maintaining. If you choose the damage option you deal damage twice.
What monsterhas Rake and Constrict? Is that really a relevant scenario to discuss?
I mean, maybe one DOES, but how did that become relevant here?
And eidolons if they're built that way.
Just for arguments sake :P
the paradox was when the tiger was on the receiving end, which you agreed means it can rake.
nothing to do with maintaining, the tiger is not the controller to begin with, but the 'grappled'/controlled.
if it full attacks, starting with the rakes, then proceeds to bite+grab,
it then begins a grapple on the same round as it raked = paradox
-------
outside of that case, given that it doesn't explicitly apply the rake claws as a bonus effect on a succesful maintain check, but just says you have these attacks, I still feel that my interpretation makes sense... And having a Tiger Pounce/Grab, and continue to Full Attack/Rake/Grab (if the prey didn't escape) seems pretty reasonably within the intended tactics of the Tiger/Lion/etc.... /shrug ...either way, I still think the wording could use some Errata, so please hit the FAQ button.
Quandry:
The problem with the 'paradox' is that you are actually creating it since you are not performing the maintain action first. THAT is what creates the paradox.
Anyhow, the rules do not explicitly state it, you are welcome to play as you like. In my games, if you do not use your maintain action first..you are not maintaining. I believe a number of people run it that way.
- Gauss
You run into issues when Greater Grapple and Rapid Grappler come into play. Because then you can attack (or full full attack with RG) AND maintain, no questions asked.
The_Scourge:
You are correct that specific trumps general. But specific MUST state that it is doing something different.
Either:
A) Creatures with grab have no choice on which option they perform (move, damage, pin) because they must select 'damage'.
OR
B) Creatures with grab have a choice on which option, the text is just reinforcing the damage option with some extra verbage.
OR
C) Creatures with grab have a choice on which option they perform (move, damage, pin) IN ADDITION to damage.
Nothing in the Grab text states they get C. So either it is A or B. Since the text stated 'conduct the grab normally' then I believe it means it is B.
- Gauss
Scourge you do realize just how brutal your making things with construct if you go that route allowing them 3 damages off one roll each round
yeah, Rapid Grappler. normal Monsters never seem to have the Grapple Feats AND Grab, but if you're building an Animal Companion or Eidolon they make MORE than enough sense to take.
EDIT: i'm not quite following the constrict stuff, i just apply the damage on top the normal effects of whatever other grapple check, but the rake damage would never be 'free bonus damage off one roll (grapple check)', the rake attacks are explicitly statted out as claws WITH ATTACK BONUSES, so you have to roll for them (of course, that means extra chance for crits).
EDIT(2): there's still ways to get bonus Move Actions fairly easily, if Standards are much harder to come by.
Actually rapid grappler only gives the swift action check after using a move action to maintain.
It does. Here:The_Scourge:
You are correct that specific trumps general. But specific MUST state that it is doing something different.
Either:
A) Creatures with grab have no choice on which option they perform (move, damage, pin) because they must select 'damage'.
OR
B) Creatures with grab have a choice on which option, the text is just reinforcing the damage option with some extra verbage.
OR
C) Creatures with grab have a choice on which option they perform (move, damage, pin) IN ADDITION to damage.
Nothing in the Grab text states they get C. So either it is A or B. Since the text stated 'conduct the grab normally' then I believe it means it is B.
- Gauss
f 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.
Doesn't say you have to choose the damage option
Scourge you do realize just how brutal your making things with construct if you go that route allowing them 3 damages off one roll each round
Quite. Otherwise, grappling is ALWAYS the worst option for monsters. While it sits and grapples one PC the rest of the party gathers round and begins the curb stomping process.
It's no worse than something with 3 or 4 primary natural attack full attacking.
And yes I missremembered Rapid Grappler.
Quandry:
Being on the recieving end does not create a paradox. It satisfies both requirements. The Tiger is grappled at the start of the round. The tiger is currently grappling. Now the Tiger proceeds to shred the idiot that grappled it with 5 attacks (Bite, Claw, Rake claws x2)
The paradox is when the Tiger is the initiator. If you do not check the maintain grapple first it cannot then later rake because while it is grappling at the start of the round it was not grappling when it made the rake attacks.
Now, I know you could say 'Well, the tiger released the target, and then made its full attack (including rake attacks) because one of the grab attacks succeeded a grapple check.'
The problem is, you cannot do that
it can’t begin a grapple and rake in the same turn.
Now then I know you could say 'Well, because the tiger does not have to declare when it released the grapple, the tiger stayed grappled throughout that round while it was making full attacks and THEN released it.'
I have already stated, the rules are more or less silent on this. My point is that maintain is pretty much the first thing that occurs. Your point is that it doesnt matter.
- Gauss
Except they have to make all 3or 4 rolls not one check that depending on size may be even easier than attacking to pull off especially with the +5 if they don't escape on their turn.
Except they have to make all 3or 4 rolls not one check that depending on size may be even easier than attacking to pull off especially with the +5 if they don't escape on their turn.
Yep. Players should fear being grappled. Without it, it is never a good idea for a monster to grapple against a party.
The_Scourge:
Yes, we get into exceedingly rarified heights when we talk about a number of feats that add onto that. But we are dealing with the BASICS first.
Grappling DOES suck for monsters on the recieving end of a party's attacks. So what? It also sucks for the PC being grappled. Especially with creatures like Behirs.
A tiger has 3 'attacks' WHILE grappling (instigating). The SAME NUMBER as in a full round (non-pounce) attack. No difference except..it is easier to give that first set of damage.
Most people's AC is higher than their CMD. A Tiger has a +9 bonus to maintain that grapple. Considering that its bonus to maintain is the same at its normal attack+9 it will HAPPILY take that option +2regular (rake) attacks over making 3 regular attacks.
In fact, it doesn't state you CAN choose the damage option either. I read it that it is either it has no choice (defactor forced to choose damage option) or that it has a choice but the text is just pointing out how the damage works.
You are giving it something extra that is not in the text...double damage.
- Gauss
ok, in the paradox case when the tiger was already grappled by their foe,
is see the issue as hinging on that when it full attacks, it can rake first, and then make attacks (bite/claws) which have grab on them: if succesful, those initiate/begin a grapple -> creating the paradox. i guess one could handwave that issue away by saying a grapple wasn't truly created [since one existed already], albeit the tiger is now the controller due to their grab check... since grab is explicitly initiating a grapple and not reversing, etc, i would normally rule otherwise... but HEY, that's not TOO MUCH of a handwave, so i guess that can get rid of said paradox... kinda :-)
i still feel like the current RAW isn't enough to make your reading obvious.
bonus move actions (able to be taken after a full attack, gained via a buffing ally who grants bonus move actions to allies) can certainly enable the POSSIBILITY of maintain actions after taking a full attack (and said bonus Move action could even be given to you AFTER your full attack via an allie's Readied Action), but i fundamentally don't think the game is requiring you to pay attention to latent capabilities to determine when the quantum collapses, there should just be a straight-forward process for everybody, and the end of the turn suffices for that. the claws are available for general use (full attack, etc) and there isn't clear wording saying that they happen on a succesful maintain check which IMHO is necessary to justify your reading. (EDIT: so there is a means for the Rake Claws to actually be used outside of Pounces)
let's hope the FAQ get's answered/Errata'd...
The_Scourge: With how I run grab, players are plenty scared. There is damage plenty.
All of the below assumes the monster instigated the grapple with a bite attack and that this is on a second round:
Tiger my way: Bite damage + 2 rake attacks.
Tiger your way: Bite damage x2 + 2 rake attacks.
Without grapple:
Tiger either way: Bite damage, 2 claw attacks. same thing, odds are +9 less that the bite attack does damage.
- Gauss
In fact, it doesn't state you CAN choose the damage option either. I read it that it is either it has no choice (defactor forced to choose damage option) or that it has a choice but the text is just pointing out how the damage works.You are giving it something extra that is not in the text...double damage.
- Gauss
Your interpretation requires much more reinterpretation than mine does. If either of your explanations were correct there would need to be further text for evidence. Mine works without such text as each successful grapple check explains everything.
Quandry:
Honestly, I don't know why you are going down that path. It is not part of the discussion until you made it one. It is an entirely different issue.
To define the 'paradox' you are talking about what if a creature with grab who is the target of a grapple successfully makes a grab check with one of its attacks. Answer is simple: It doesnt try to take control. Why? Because it does more damage as the recipient. Should it desire to take control, we could rule it either as an attempt to become the instigator OR we can say it isnt a proper check. It is a corner case.
As for the whole 'can you rake without making a maintain check first' issue. Yes, there are quite a few ways to get extra actions. Yes, there are ways to reduce that maintain check action. Great! none of that really matters because I believe that if you do not make that maintain check FIRST then you are not maintaining. I tried to provide a 'regular' (ie no corner case feats etc) way for you to understand but you were resistant.
No biggy, <in the voice of Stark from farscape> My game, your game, my game, your game. :P
- Gauss
The_Scourge:
Actually you are reinterpreting it more than I am. You are outright applying text that does not exist. NOTHING in the text states you are getting damage AND damage.
Now, my 'reinterpretation' as you call it is just my attempt at trying to explain it to you. As I read it it gets exactly one thing and one thing only...DAMAGE. Not damage x2. Not damage +move, not damage +pin. Just, damage. Nothing there even states it gets the standard options.
You are the one giving it extra options. Personally, I believe the game designers did not intend to reduce a creatures ability to pin or move so I would give it both OPTIONS but...by RAW, it have neither of those options because Grab does not say it does.
You opened the door..I just stepped through.
- Gauss
I think this needs an FAQ. Well there is a blog on grapple, but it does not go into grab, and whether or not a double bite/claw/etc takes place.
Ok. From Grapple itselfThe_Scourge:
Actually you are reinterpreting it more than I am. You are outright applying text that does not exist. NOTHING in the text states you are getting damage AND damage.
Now, my 'reinterpretation' as you call it is just my attempt at trying to explain it to you. As I read it it gets exactly one thing and one thing only...DAMAGE. Not damage x2. Not damage +move, not damage +pin. Just, damage. Nothing there even states it gets the standard options.
You are the one giving it extra options. Personally, I believe the game designers did not intend to reduce a creatures ability to pin or move so I would give it both OPTIONS but...by RAW, it have neither of those options because Grab does not say it does.
You opened the door..I just stepped through.
- Gauss
Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple).
Grab adds the damage of the attack that established the grapple automatically. Nothing in grab stops you from pinning moving etc. Dealing damage twice is probably the least horrible thing a monster could do. Tigers don't stop killing their prey when they drag them off into the woods.
right. i remember the last grapple blog, and people tried to raise the ACTUALLY difficult rules questions about it in the comments (grab, movement limitation), but of course the actually difficult questions weren't a priority, apparently.. 8-/ ....here's hoping it does get seen to SOON. i'm not going to get into scourge's thing on constrict any more, but the wording there is definitely problematic/not good/could use Errata Editing.
The_Scourge:
Right, from grapple itself..which you earlier said is being overwritten by the 'specific' from Grab. You cant have it both ways. This is the door I walked through.
The 'specific' from grab does NOT state you get damage + normal grapple actions. It does not state you get damage+damage. It does not state you get damage+move. It does not state you get damage+pin.
So: what DOES it state? You get damage. You said the specific overrides the general. THAT is the specific.
Note: at this point I am playing devil's advocate. I have my own different interpretation which you already rejected.
- Gauss
The_Scourge:
Right, from grapple itself..which you earlier said is being overwritten by the 'specific' from Grab. You cant have it both ways. This is the door I walked through.
The 'specific' from grab does NOT state you get damage + normal grapple actions. It does not state you get damage+damage. It does not state you get damage+move. It does not state you get damage+pin.
So: what DOES it state? You get damage. You said the specific overrides the general. THAT is the specific.
Note: at this point I am playing devil's advocate. I have my own different interpretation which you already rejected.
- Gauss
The specific states
-automatic damage (from other listings of the word automatic in the rules without indication of a furthur action this indicates that it isn't an action at all)-it states that you get said damage on each successful grapple check. Part of a successful grapple check is applying one of those options.
With your interpretation, a creature with grab can not move, pin, or tie up (for higher int creatures with grab) since it doesn't specifically state you can do those things in grab. Making grab super extra worse.
Note to your note: I figured as much from your farscape quoting earlier. Still needs to be hammered out for future finders of this thread. And for Tetori monks everywhere
Actually, my interpretation is NOT what I just stated. As I said, I am playing Devil's Advocate. for my interpretation you have to go back a few posts. It is B.
I just do not believe that the text supports your position that you get damage+maintain option. Anyhow...my game your game. :D
- Gauss
But what supports your interpretation? Or any other except mine.
Yours is C. Conservative is A. Mine is B. Neither yours nor mine is supported by RAW. However, the developers general idea is that options are open not closed. Thus RAI should be B.
I had created a nice long post for JJ and then it was eaten. I will be writing again in a minute. Of course, nobody will pay attention since most people do not care what JJ thinks unless he agrees with their position. *shrugs* Unfortunately, FAQs are slow because people do not respect the developers. We have only ourselves to blame.
- Gauss
Yeah Gauss I think we need an official forum penalty call for poster who quote JJ when he agrees then use the " JJ isn't the rules guy" line the very next thread.
Maybe a ten yard penalty asses do to resembling a politician?