|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scenario: an hangman tree has a single target in reach.
It has 3 wines that do 1d6+7 of damage plus Grab and Pull, then it has the constrict special ability.
Constrict (Ex) A creature with this special attack can crush an opponent, dealing bludgeoning damage, when it makes a successful grapple check (in addition to any other effects caused by a successful check, including additional damage). The amount of damage is given in the creature's entry and is typically equal to the amount of damage caused by the creature's melee attack.
If there is only 1 target in reach, it can make a full attack, grab the target with the first attack and deal constriction damage and then, without releasing the grapple, attack with the other vines and deal constriction damage again with each successful attack? i. e. if a creature with the constriction SA grab you multiple times in a round without releasing you, it can apply the constriction damage multiple times?
RAW it seem to be the case, but the effect seem a bit excessive.
Note: I am fully aware that the tree can grab and constrict a creature, then release it with a free action then resolve the next attack that can be again a grab+constrict, but in that situation the tree is dealing with a creature with full CMD, not one with a reduced CMD for being grabbed.
Nope.
Because Grab only lets you "start a grapple"... not make a check to maintain one. So a dire tiger that hits with 2 claws and a bite (all have grab) cannot Initiate, Pin and then deal damage with three grapple checks. It can simply make three checks to start a grapple. Once that grapple is started, grab has no further effect as a rider.
So, that hangman tree would, in fact, have to attack - grab - constrict - drop the grapple - repeat.
Seems kinda silly, but there it is.
Grab generally is a bit wonky. It seems like it should let you maintain... that way you could keep full attacking while maintaining the grapple, and you wouldn't have that weird situation where a giant octopus can't really grapple more than one target without dropping all of its grapples each round and trying to grab anew. In other words.. you have no way of maintaining multiple grapples simultaneously, even though you can grab multiple targets in the same round. There is something very iconic about a multi-tenticled monster grappling more than one hero at a time, and the RAW really doesn't support that.
In truth, I think that the -20 to CMB should be reduced drastically (probably to a -4 at worst to both CMB and CMD), and that the effect should be that you can't make attacks with that limb, but can maintain grapples with it as a free action each turn. That way, there is a reason to take that option... simply not gaining the grappled condition is in no way worth taking a -20. Then I would restrict grapple options to just dealing damage (ie no tie up or pin option... just crushing them to death).
To follow up... what I was trying to say is that each limb with grab should be able to act like its own grappler.
So the hangman tree would be able to attack three targets and grapple each with grab.. and then maintain all three as on its next turn as part of a full-attack. AKA, instead of the grappling limbs making attacks, they make their maintain checks instead and constrict as normal.
OR it could make three attacks against a single target, and have each limb be grappling them for independent constrict damage and attack damage with independent checks but ensuring that the target could still escape with one check.
This change would really be nice for enabling some iconic fights... even the Kraken right now can only maintain one grapple at a time as a standard action, and that just seems dumb.
Note: I am fully aware that the tree can grab and constrict a creature, then release it with a free action then resolve the next attack that can be again a grab+constrict, but in that situation the tree is dealing with a creature with full CMD, not one with a reduced CMD for being grabbed.Correct me if I'm wrong, but in 99.9% of all cases the CMD reduction is equal to the attack penalty the attacker takes (unless you take -20 on your grapple check)?
Not quite.
The penalty for being grappled is -2 to attack rolls and -4 dex, but the attack roll penalty does not apply to grapple CMB (either for maintainance or escape checks).
So, a grappled creature has -2 CMD from the dex penalty, and the grappler has no penalty to their CMB.
|
|
Note: I am fully aware that the tree can grab and constrict a creature, then release it with a free action then resolve the next attack that can be again a grab+constrict, but in that situation the tree is dealing with a creature with full CMD, not one with a reduced CMD for being grabbed.Correct me if I'm wrong, but in 99.9% of all cases the CMD reduction is equal to the attack penalty the attacker takes (unless you take -20 on your grapple check)?
The hangman tree don't count as grappled. It is oen of its special abilities.
When a hangman tree grapples a foe with its vines, the tree does not gain the grappled condition.
Lord_Malkov, you have replied to something different from what I have asked.
Maintaining the grapple don't matter. It is all done in the same round while using a full attack.
Ah, allow me to clarify.
There are three types of grapple checks.
1. A check to initiate a grapple.
2. A check to maintain a grapple.
3. A check to escape a grapple.
Every check that is made after starting a grapple is a maintain check... this includes any and all checks made to Tie Up, Pin, Damage, or Move the target. This is a sort of unfortunate bit of wording, since you are also required to make a check to Maintain the grapple each round... but those are the only three types of checks, so that is where things lie. It is really just a determination of type, to help with the nomenclature as it comes up quite a bit with magic items and feats etc.
For example, if you have greater grapple, you can start a grapple as standard action, and then 'maintain' that grapple as a move action. If you successfully 'maintain' it, you can move, damage, pin etc.
Grab only grants a free check to "start a grapple", so it does not allow other check types (to pin, move, tie up, or damage). Since you, as a tree, have already started a grapple against your opponent, you can't start another grapple with the same opponent, sort of like trying to trip a prone target in order to get some other rider effect. It is already prone or it is already grappled.
Still, a GM could reasonably give you the interpretation you are looking for, since it is still 100% doable by just dropping the grapple between attacks. The only difference is that you would not be working against the -4 dex CMD of the target... and really that is not a big deal.
And really... I suppose there is technically nothing saying that you can't start a grapple multiple times against the same target, or even that you couldn't trip a prone target... so from that perspective I guess it could work. And the Grab rules are poorly done as it is, so I personally would have no issue with it.
|
|
Grab only grants a free check to "start a grapple", so it does not allow other check types (to pin, move, tie up, or damage). Since you, as a tree, have already started a grapple against your opponent, you can't start another grapple with the same opponent, sort of like trying to trip a prone target in order to get some other rider effect. It is already prone or it is already grappled.
Any rule that support that statement?
I don't see anything in the rules that say that a target can't be grabbed multiple times.
And really... I suppose there is technically nothing saying that you can't start a grapple multiple times against the same target, or even that you couldn't trip a prone target... so from that perspective I guess it could work. And the Grab rules are poorly done as it is, so I personally would have no issue with it.
You can trip a prone character. You simply get nothing from doing that. AFAIK the riders effects are generated by the target dropping prone, and a prone target can't get "more" prone.
I don't really want to quote my own post where I already answered that question. But I already answered that question.
The issue is simply a question of rules interpretation. Can I start a grapple after I started a grapple? Well simple logic would say no. You can't start anything after it has already started. You already did that. To start it a second time, you would have to stop first, yes?
Its a serious semantic issue. The same issue that arises when a character attempts to trip a prone target. Degrees of success come into question.
Constrict deals damage on a "successful" grapple attempt. Is it successful if it has no effect? Take this line from the Grapple section on starting a grapple: "If successful, both you and the target gain the grappled condition."
So if neither you nor the target gain the grappled condition (you don't since you both already have it) are you considered successful? Of course this is the sort of thing that will not have a specific rule attached to it, because it is a weird edge case for one ability.
Saying yes or no is the sort of this that simply has to come down to a GM's interpretation, and that is what he or she is there for. RAW doesn't cover everything, but from my perspective, RAI is against you here.
Grab only grants a free check to "start a grapple", so it does not allow other check types (to pin, move, tie up, or damage). Since you, as a tree, have already started a grapple against your opponent, you can't start another grapple with the same opponent, sort of like trying to trip a prone target in order to get some other rider effect. It is already prone or it is already grappled.Any rule that support that statement?
I don't see anything in the rules that say that a target can't be grabbed multiple times.
And really... I suppose there is technically nothing saying that you can't start a grapple multiple times against the same target, or even that you couldn't trip a prone target... so from that perspective I guess it could work. And the Grab rules are poorly done as it is, so I personally would have no issue with it.You can trip a prone character. You simply get nothing from doing that. AFAIK the riders effects are generated by the target dropping prone, and a prone target can't get "more" prone.
Just like this case with starting a grapple. Normally, yes... tripping something that is already prone has no effect. The oddities arise when you add in weird abilities, just like adding constrict.
Greater Trip, Ki Throw, Improved Ki Throw, Spinning Throw, and Enhanced Ki Throw all work off of a "successful trip". So again, the question of whether or not you can trip a prone target comes up.
There are plenty of reasons to trip a prone target if you can, but common sense brings up a pretty solid counter-argument.
So, if you are looking for a RAW interpretation, then perhaps we should look to what it means to be "successful" and in doing so, decide that since the effects that would normally come from success do not occur, then the act itself is not successful. This is just an application of the contrapositive.
E.G:
If the target is knocked prone, the trip is successful.
If the target gains the grappled condition, the grapple attempt was successful.
If the target is not knocked prone, the trip failed.
If the target does not gain the grappled condition, the grapple attempt failed.
|
|
I don't really want to quote my own post where I already answered that question. But I already answered that question.
The issue is simply a question of rules interpretation. Can I start a grapple after I started a grapple? Well simple logic would say no. You can't start anything after it has already started. You already did that. To start it a second time, you would have to stop first, yes?
Its a serious semantic issue. The same issue that arises when a character attempts to trip a prone target. Degrees of success come into question.
Constrict deals damage on a "successful" grapple attempt. Is it successful if it has no effect? Take this line from the Grapple section on starting a grapple: "If successful, both you and the target gain the grappled condition."
So if neither you nor the target gain the grappled condition (you don't since you both already have it) are you considered successful? Of course this is the sort of thing that will not have a specific rule attached to it, because it is a weird edge case for one ability.
Saying yes or no is the sort of this that simply has to come down to a GM's interpretation, and that is what he or she is there for. RAW doesn't cover everything, but from my perspective, RAI is against you here.
Sorry, but your reply translate to: "It is my opinion".
No rule support pro or against grappling a target multiple times.
E.G:
If the target is knocked prone, the trip is successful.
If the target gains the grappled condition, the grapple attempt was successful.
If the target is not knocked prone, the trip failed.
If the target does not gain the grappled condition, the grapple attempt failed.
A prone character can't be made "more" prone.
A grappled character can be grabbed multiple times by different characters, but that rule don't help us here:Multiple Creatures: Multiple creatures can attempt to grapple one target. The creature that first initiates the grapple is the only one that makes a check, with a +2 bonus for each creature that assists in the grapple (using the Aid Another action). Multiple creatures can also assist another creature in breaking free from a grapple, with each creature that assists (using the Aid Another action) granting a +2 bonus on the grappled creature's combat maneuver check.
BTW, I was the one arguing against multiple constricts at the table, my problem is that I am not completely sure I was right.
FAQing the initial post as it seem there isn't a reply in the rules.
As I said... its RAI... I am not saying that I have some rule to point to... just giving my interpretation and including my reasons for it.
That is why I said that it will come down to GM fiat and a particular reading of the rules.