| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So I had a new, rather unpleasant experience: Fighting a creature with 4 attacks, grab, and a "constrict-like" ability
Previously, when I have run creatures like this, regardless of the number of hits they initiate one grab and constrict. It seemed sensible.
DM for this game did something which I consider rather crazy, but after reading the boards I have come to learn is a common interpretation: For EACH limb grab, constrict, release. RAW, perfectly valid.
So now this particular creature has 4 attacks, each doing natural wp damage + constrict + ability damage; in this case 1d4+4+2d6 and fort or 1d4 ability damage
Let's look at damage vs a fighter type. CR 4 adventure, so lets assume AC 24 for the fighter. (this particular critter is base cr 6, but has character levels too, to make it 8)
assume ~45% hit/grapple rate vs AC 24 (+14 to hit) and CMD 20 (+15 to grapple)
2d4+8+4d6 ~ 27 per rd + 2 ability (assume 1 save); I have cleric levels, so assume a bulls strength and additional +4 damage a round
Now compare with an equivalent CR 8, a mighty green dragon
bite +13 (2d6+7), 2 claws +13 (1d8+5), 2 wings +8 (1d6+2), tail slap +8 (1d8+7)
.5*(14+18)+.25(11+10)=16+5=21
Top predator mr dragon starts looking pretty weak, doing 30-50% damage less a round, depending on spells in play.
Lets look at maximal cases, all attacks hit:
dragon 4d6+11+3d8+17 ~ 55; scary, huh?
other critter:
4d4+16+8d6 =10+16+28 ~ 54 and 4d4 ability ouch and OUCH - and I'm a cleric 3 so I might add another +8 from bulls strength.
This multiple constricts a round is incredibly deadly for players. I seriously feels the intent was one free grab/turn, not one/appendage/turn.
The intent wasn't for only one grab/constrict per turn. The creature, lets call it a Kraken since I've fought such a creature in Pathfinder with multiple attacks and the abilities you're discussed, can use any number of grab/construct attempts so long as the creature has the BAB/extra attacks to perform with. So lets assume a Kraken at level 11 (or 11 hit die) with full BAB. Even with 8 tentacles, full BAB only allows for three attacks at the rate of +11/+6/+1 unless the Kraken has has Haste active on it or has taken the two-weapon fighting/multi-attack feat chains. Assuming FULL BAB with two weapon fighting, with the max BAB allowing for improved two-weapon fighting the Kraken can get two extra attacks through two weapon fighting for a total of five attacks, or six attacks with a haste effect.
Each successful grapple attempt could deliver the constrict damage, and with a max of 5 to 6 attacks, if all attacks are successful the constrict damage could occur 5 to 6 times as well. Certainly a very effective tactic, and highly damaging, but the Kraken (or whatever creature you're fighting) could only get as many attacks as it had BAB/feats/spell effects for. So even though a Kraken might have 8+ tentacles, this particular case could only use 5 to 6 tentacle attacks per turn. It's a legitimate use of grab/constrict.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh. Grab/grapple still doesn't work in PF. Simpler than 3.5 sure, but still grinds combat to a halt.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The intent wasn't for only one grab/constrict per turn. The creature, lets call it a Kraken since I've fought such a creature in Pathfinder with multiple attacks and the abilities you're discussed, can use any number of grab/construct attempts so long as the creature has the BAB/extra attacks to perform with. So lets assume a Kraken at level 11 (or 11 hit die) with full BAB. Even with 8 tentacles, full BAB only allows for three attacks at the rate of +11/+6/+1 unless the Kraken has has Haste active on it or has taken the two-weapon fighting/multi-attack feat chains. Assuming FULL BAB with two weapon fighting, with the max BAB allowing for improved two-weapon fighting the Kraken can get two extra attacks through two weapon fighting for a total of five attacks, or six attacks with a haste effect.
Each successful grapple attempt could deliver the constrict damage, and with a max of 5 to 6 attacks, if all attacks are successful the constrict damage could occur 5 to 6 times as well. Certainly a very effective tactic, and highly damaging, but the Kraken (or whatever creature you're fighting) could only get as many attacks as it had BAB/feats/spell effects for. So even though a Kraken might have 8+ tentacles, this particular case could only use 5 to 6 tentacle attacks per turn. It's a legitimate use of grab/constrict.
Your example is actually not correct. Natural attacks generally do not follow the BAB based iterative attack routine. A creature with 8 natural weapons would get 8 attacks per turn, regardless of their BAB. That said, many tentacled creatures treat all of their tentacles as only 1 attack, so not all octopus/squidlike creatures will have a large number of attacks.
Tangaroa:
I know the fight you're referring to, and it is indeed an extremely tough fight. When I ran it the game ended in TPK. I'd put it at a solid CR 8.5.
All in all, very tough fight, but those make the best fights when you manage to overcome the challenge.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The intent wasn't for only one grab/constrict per turn. The creature, lets call it a Kraken since I've fought such a creature in Pathfinder with multiple attacks and the abilities you're discussed, can use any number of grab/construct attempts so long as the creature has the BAB/extra attacks to perform with. So lets assume a Kraken at level 11 (or 11 hit die) with full BAB. Even with 8 tentacles, full BAB only allows for three attacks at the rate of +11/+6/+1 unless the Kraken has has Haste active on it or has taken the two-weapon fighting/multi-attack feat chains. Assuming FULL BAB with two weapon fighting, with the max BAB allowing for improved two-weapon fighting the Kraken can get two extra attacks through two weapon fighting for a total of five attacks, or six attacks with a haste effect.
Each successful grapple attempt could deliver the constrict damage, and with a max of 5 to 6 attacks, if all attacks are successful the constrict damage could occur 5 to 6 times as well. Certainly a very effective tactic, and highly damaging, but the Kraken (or whatever creature you're fighting) could only get as many attacks as it had BAB/feats/spell effects for. So even though a Kraken might have 8+ tentacles, this particular case could only use 5 to 6 tentacle attacks per turn. It's a legitimate use of grab/constrict.
Daniel, I think you missed the section on natural attacks.
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks).
A Kraken - as in your example - actually gets 11 attacks a round if it takes a full-attack action. (2 arms, 8 tentacles, and a bite).
To the original poster; I agree with you. Most beasties - especially those who are trying to capture a meal - would most likely grab on and hold tight. The attack-grab-constrict-release-repeat maneuver is generally used by GMs who don't feel their creatures have much of a chance against PCs. It is legal but generally not in line with the motivation of the creatures.
Mind you, grabbing multiple creatures (one per appendage) would be totally worth doing to get a bigger meal.
|
|
To the original poster; I agree with you. Most beasties - especially those who are trying to capture a meal - would most likely grab on and hold tight. The attack-grab-constrict-release-repeat maneuver is generally used by GMs who don't feel their creatures have much of a chance against PCs. It is legal but generally not in line with the motivation of the creatures.
For the specific creature the OP is referring to, it would be completely reasonable for it to use multiple grab/constricts each round due to it's intelligence and motivations.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've run that module, too, and that's exactly how I ran the BBEG. It messed up the party pretty badly, and they still had half of the dungeon left to explore.
Since grappling creatures with multiple limbs (like this critter, or the Giant Octopus) can't actually maintain more than one grapple under Pathfinder's rules, the grab/constrict/drop tactics are the only way they can truly be effective (or in this case, downright scary).
My understanding of creatures with the Grab ability is this:
If they perform a Grab as part of an attack, they can initiate a Grapple as a free action. If that check succeeds, they can either perform a Grapple as normal, or use the individual limb to perform the Grapple. If they do a normal Grapple, in subsequent rounds they can do damage as a regular attack + Constrict damage once. They are restricted to this damage once per round as they have the Grappled condition, so cannot perform any actions that require more than one hand (like attacking with multiple limbs). They can, however, make regular attacks with one limb if they have a high enough BAB, but those attacks wouldn't then do the Constrict damage.
If they instead perform the Grab with each limb individually (which is an option), each Grab attempt is performed at a -20 penalty. This would allow them to perform all of the attacks, damage + Constrict damage in your example above, but with this penalty the likelihood of succeeding on dealing the damage is pretty minimal. For this example the +15 Grapple then becomes a -5, and if a limb succeeds at its Grapple attempt it still has a 0 bonus to subsequent rolls.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm guessing some of the posters here know Tangaroa (and the module in which this happened - I suspect you are right). I was responding in general terms. I have run into many creatures with this ability. Including one that was attacking 11th level characters (made flat-footed/dexless by an environmental trick) 8 times a round with a +19 modifier. Using the grab-constrict-release trick. Even full-plate shieldy types were getting hit for an average of 10d6+50 a round. Casters just flat-out died. Even without the environmental trick it would have been death for casters and bad news for anyone not sporting an AC of at least 30. It was CR 12.
The OP's point (and one I agree with) is that the CR of these monsters is too low if this is assumed to be the "default" way of using multiple-limb constrict.
I've run that module, too, and that's exactly how I ran the BBEG. It messed up the party pretty badly, and they still had half of the dungeon left to explore.
Since grappling creatures with multiple limbs (like this critter, or the Giant Octopus) can't actually maintain more than one grapple under Pathfinder's rules, the grab/constrict/drop tactics are the only way they can truly be effective (or in this case, downright scary).
There is a disconnect in the rules there. A creature can grab multiple creatures - one per limb with grab - but can only maintain one (two if it has greater grapple). And if it doesn't have greater grapple it just spent its standard action for the round. "Woo-hoo, last round I grabbed and constricted 4 creatures for 15 damage each! This round I will be forced to drop three of them and maintain on only one for 8 damage!" I agree that an intelligent creature fighting for its life instead of a meal would absolutely drop them all and full-attack.
^ Are you sure they can't maintain more than one grapple at a time? Critters with the grab special attack can take a -20 penalty on the check to grapple the target without gaining the grappled condition. I'd assume that this would allow said critter to grapple one target per noodly appendage.
That just means the creature doesn't get the grappled condition itself. (Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.)
The problem is with the description of how a grapple is "maintained" after the first round.
If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^ Are you sure they can't maintain more than one grapple at a time?
Yes, they can as you said with a -20 penalty. That's what I was saying toward the end of my post. This is indeed possible, but the -20 penalty to the grapple checks keeps success for those attacks to a minimum. If they don't use limbs and instead perform a standard Grapple, they get their full +15 to grapple checks, but are restricted to the actions of a standard grapple.
Yes, I apologize if I'm coming across as a bit frustrated. If my math is correct then a creature using these tactics ends up looking like a creature 2 CRs higher.
OTOH, if you limit yourself to 1 free grapple/round (with a few exceptions like the Kraken or CMB +60 monsters that can afford the -20), it brings the critter back in line with level appropriate CRs.
Sure, grapple then is a non-optimal action for monsters - but it always is for the PCs (barring a few summoners and *quite* specialized fighters or monks), so that seems like there is more equity with that situation. If a situation gets to the point where a grappler can afford to use their wonky special abilities on a PC, then they should have the opportunity to leisurely choke the life out of them.
I suppose as a GM, I can always limit my own number of free actions; but it would be nice to have a standard to eliminate table variation.
It would be interesting to compare some numbers against other critters using this technique vs. equivalent level monsters limited to normal full attacks.
[rant]I can't even really visualize how a monster would effect such tactics in the first place - I grab, I squeeze I let go once every 1.5 seconds. Monks have a nice ability called flurry of blows which allow them to only punch once every few seconds. Multi-clawed critters might get 4 or 5 attacks around - but give a Froghemoth grab, and it can attack and squeeze the life out of someone FOUR times in six seconds[/endrant]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Belafon Ah, good point. I guess a good middle ground might be to rule that maintaining a grapple taken at the -20 penalty to avoid gaining the grappled condition can substitute for an attack with that natural weapon (e.g., tentacle). Thus, maintaining each such grapple would count as an attack during a full attack, and free appendages can attack and attempt to grab normally.
Of course, the only differences between that and the hit + grab + constrict + drop option, mechanically speaking, is the -20 penalty and reduced ongoing damage (only constrict on subsequent rounds). That might be enough of a penalty to put tentacle monsters closer to their intended CR... as it is, double slam damage with no penalties does not seem to be the intended mechanic.
Something like this would also be an acceptable compromise.
Yeah, I know what you're talking about since I wild shaped into this thing.
Essentially, we went with the fact that any single creature can take constrict damage just once per round per enemy. Otherwise you can cheese it up and get constrict multiple times in a single round, which I believe wasn't the intent when they wrote the constrict rule (I imagine they were only thinking of a snake).
Also note that a giant squid doesn't actually attack with every single limb it has; in fact it lists the number of limbs that attack and which ones do constrict damage if I remember correctly. A GM trying to spice up the difficulty might do it, but then realizes that the druid in the group is going to just copy it, so it keeps the GM in line.
Based on how we run it in local groups I think that a generally accepted practice is that monsters using Grab without any special feats and without taking a -20 on their grapple attempts should generally stick to one grapple+constrict per round. Some GMs like to push it a little bit and give the monster a grapple check for every attack which hit. Whether or not succeeding on one of those should invalidate subsequent attacks is a matter of some debate.
Grappling more than once per round can certainly be a valid part of the game though. Consider the Greater Improved Grapple and Rapid Grappler feats, which allow you to maintain a grapple as a move and then a swift action. If you gain the Constrict ability somehow (perhaps from the "anaconda's coils" belt or because you're a monster or polymorphed into one) I'd assume that you'd get Constrict damage on each successful grapple check just as the ability says.
Even at once per round the big grapple+constrict monsters are some of the deadliest in the game for any PC without Freedom of Movement. Of course Swallow Whole can add even more damage. Advanced Sea Serpents are absolutely hellish, for instance. I slaughtered a PC with them a few months ago and then nearly had my PC slaughtered by one shortly afterwards. Another GM needed a random maritime encounter, and I handed him my monster print outs - it was an epic battle!
I tend to favor one grab per attack type - so the kraken (which lists grab twice) would get two. Most other critters 1.
Anyways, if you think it needs clarification feel free to mark the top post as FAQ.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
^ Are you sure they can't maintain more than one grapple at a time? Critters with the grab special attack can take a -20 penalty on the check to grapple the target without gaining the grappled condition. I'd assume that this would allow said critter to grapple one target per noodly appendage.
That -20 right there, makes any kind of constrict strategy unworkable for any creature fighting CR-appropriate PCs.
It is simply impossible to have a CMB high enough to pass a grapple check at -20, without giving the creature a CMB that is otherwise auto-pass, which requires a BAB, Strength, feats and racial bonuses that make it a TPK monster.
The -20 is a cut and paste from D&D3.5, when size bonuses to grapple were four times larger than PF and grappling was an opposed roll.
Now that grappling is no longer an opposed roll, but a roll vs a 'take 10' defence, the penalty should be slashed to half, or better still, even less than half, to reflect both changes.
The math reasons underlying this have been gone over many times during the Alpha and Beta playtest, but cannot be argued against by the developers, since they are the same math they used to justify cutting the size bonuses and the bonuses for Improved Grapple/Trip/Bullrush, etc.
They can't have it both ways.
They can't cut the size bonuses and feat bonuses, on the grounds that 'rolling vs target DCs means every modifier is doubly-effective', then fail to reduce the penalties by the same logic.
@Snorter - Maybe they like the penalties. Grab+Constrict is still one of the deadliest monster abilities (unless it is completely negated by Freedom of Movement, which should probably just give you a hefty bonus against it)
@Tangaroa - I think the FAQ request probably needs to be more concise with a clear question to be answered in FAQ.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@snorter Be that as it may, the point remains: there's a mechanic that allows some monsters to grapple without being grappled, and that's what I'd need to see used for this kind of business to be sensible.
Do you have the name and source for that feat or ability?
Are you saying there is a feat or ability that negates the need for the check at -20? Or is that what you're referring to?Because the rules that force a standard action check to maintain a single grapple, and force that grapple check to be made at -20, is not what I consider 'a mechanic that allows some monsters to grapple without being grappled'.
That rule is better described as 'a mechanic that forces every grappling creature to drop all but one target immediately after establishing multiple holds, then makes them drop the last target as well, while failing to pass a castrated check to maintain that grapple, in a futile attempt not to cripple themselves with reduced Dex and compromised movement, as if they had actually been the loser in a grapple, rather than the victor'.
It needs to be a given, for any multi-limbed, tentacled, agile, intelligent creature whose modus operandi is grappling, to be able to
a) maintain holds without forfeiting all other actions for the turn, and
b) to be able to maintain more than one hold per turn, and
c) for the checks to maintain a hold to be viable, and
d) for creatures of massive size and strength not to be considered hindered by holding, dragging or carrying any target whose weight is utterly insignificant to them*.
and I'd like to add those to every grapple-specialised creature I use or create in the future.
Because the rules as they stand now simply do not reflect the abilities of real marine creatures, observable in the wild or in captivity, to carry out multiple, simultaneous, complex operations.
*
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Core Rulebook is written (and, to be fair, has to be written) from the point of view of the standard playable races, who are all Small or Medium bipeds, with limbs that only bend certain directions, and hold their vital organs in places that a grappled target could counter-attack.
Having a penalty to the CMB roll, to attempt a grapple without leaving themselves compromised is a valid rule (though I stand by the opinion that a minus 20 is far too large).
If I were to grab another human in real life, I would have to worry about reverse headbutt to the face, scrape of shoe heel down the shin, stiletto through the metatarsals, fingernails in my eyes, knee in the groin. And all the other techniques taught in a self-defence class, which would reduce the number of ways I could effectively approach a target. Protecting my own vitals would hinder my effectiveness as an attacker.
Also, if I were to use both arms, and possibly legs, to hold my target, I would be left with no limbs to fend off a third party (hence the 'grappled' penalties applying to attacker and defender).
When the grappling creature has
a) multiple limbs,
b) flexible limbs that rotate in infinite directions,
c) long reach (to keep grappled targets away from its vulnerable organs),
d) suckers,
e) odd, non-humanoid anatomy (or in the case of many aberrations, a constantly-shifting anatomy) that confuses attempts to counterattack,
f) ongoing damage or status effects, such as flaming/cold/acidic skin, barbs, poison sweat, that focus the target's panic.
Then the creature should possess bonuses to its grapple CMB (or at least, removal of penalties to maintain), be unaffected by the grappled condition (since it still has limbs free to defend itself), and (the big issue here) be granted the ability to maintain multiple grapples as attacks within a full-attack action.
The easiest way to do this is not to change the Core grapple rules, but to add to existing rules, via the Universal Monster Special Abilities, and or writing feats that do this (which can then be granted as bonus feats to all who qualify).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Related to this issue is that grapples tend to immobilize you. If a Roc swoops down on someone, grabs him, it can't fly away in the same round (using Flyby attack) because the grappled condition prohibits that.
How is this related? Through the (house rule) solution. Change the rule, so that a creature can continue to grapple a significantly smaller (>2 categories) creature with the limb used to establish the grapple, without -20, and without gaining the grappled condition itself. However, due its grabbing appendage being so big, it can't bring any other appendages to bear against the same victim.
Since the [Roc, Kraken] isn't grappled itself, it can move and drag along its victim.
Since its tentacle is completely wrapped around the poor halfling, it can't grab-constrict the halfling with another tentacle as well. However, it can grab some more people with its other tentacles.
Also, no more grab-constrict-release-grab shenanigans. All those natural attacks that use full BAB happen simultaneously. If someone is grabbed by one limb, it can't be grabbed by another limb.
Thoughts?
I think Grab is powerful enough already with the exception that Freedom of Movement should probably just provide a hefty bonus against being grappled instead of outright immunity.
@666Bender - There's a magic belt in ultimate Equipment called "anaconda's coils" which gives you +2 Str and constrict for 1d6 plus your Str mod.
|
|
Related to this issue is that grapples tend to immobilize you. If a Roc swoops down on someone, grabs him, it can't fly away in the same round (using Flyby attack) because the grappled condition prohibits that.
Yes, the fly-by snatch is another scenario that fails to be modelled by the RAW.
I think, whenever the RAW actively work against the resolution of an action that can be freely observed in real life, it's the RAW that need to be addressed; don't force GMs to adopt artificial workarounds.
Since its tentacle is completely wrapped around the poor halfling, it can't grab-constrict the halfling with another tentacle as well. However, it can grab some more people with its other tentacles.
Also, no more grab-constrict-release-grab shenanigans. All those natural attacks that use full BAB happen simultaneously. If someone is grabbed by one limb, it can't be grabbed by another limb.
Thoughts?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I usually use the grab/squeeze/release method to attack multiple opponents, as it's usually one big tentacle monster vs multiple PCs.
The intent being that the monster wants to reduce the number of sharp pointy things being stuck in it.Only once there are no distractions would I tend to focus more than one limb per target.
There could be grounds for limiting the number of limbs per target, where the size difference is immense. I don't know that I'd cap it at one limb for 2 size categories difference, though.
Not when a human (Medium) can hold a chicken (Tiny) with one hand, and wring its neck with the other.
...Doesnt the grab feat allow a creature of huge or larger to take a -20 penalty to not gain the grabbed condition while grappling?
A debate ensued, in which I was the sole voice in support of the GM, that there should be no game effects for what was obviously a piece of flavour text, and even if it weren't just flavour text, it made no sense that a creature that size should be slowed in any way by a trophy that small. "He probably picks objects out of his nose that weigh more than that chicken" is a phrase that still resonates in my memory
I do believe I may have had a very similar argument myself. Similar to the 'That giant had two arms, two legs, and a head on a torso, i.e. humanoid form, ergo it is a larger than typical humanoid and it should be affected by my specifically humanoid affecting spell'.
Then again, the grapple rules in their entirety are sort of ... Let's call it streamlined. There is an unfortunate amount of room for interpretation and error.
It needs to be a given, for any multi-limbed, tentacled, agile, intelligent creature whose modus operandi is grappling, to be able to
a) maintain holds without forfeiting all other actions for the turn, and
b) to be able to maintain more than one hold per turn, and
c) for the checks to maintain a hold to be viable, and
d) for creatures of massive size and strength not to be considered hindered by holding, dragging or carrying any target whose weight is utterly insignificant to them*
The base grappling rules indicate that maintaining the grapple nets the grappler a +5 (Circumstance) hold bonus. Is this applied to the -20 for a grab creature to maintain hold, for a net -15? Plus creatures with grab get a +4 to maintain (Maintain specifically for this purpose) or initiate a grab, do -11? Would the +2 from Improved Grapple feat bring this down to -9? Three sources, three types of bonus. And Greater Grapple would bring it down to -7, wouldn't it? Moreover, this is only if the creature chooses not to just take the grappled condition itself and make the attack to grab another with a free.... er... appendage at a -2 penalty? To grab more it would just need to take the -7 penalty on all its holds (it doesn't say that the -20 modifier is cumulative per grappled creature. Maybe it's how I read it, though...) Then again, I feel a truly colossal octopus should have the Pull universal monster ability tied to its Grab. As it is, the Giant Octopus in the bestiary is a large creature (About horse sized, but with 20 foot long tentacles if you go by the description/extra reach with tentacles)
While the multiattack feat doesn't specifically grant extra grappling ability, it seems reasonable that it should allow the multiple limbed creature to make extra grapples to at least some extent, or if not that some other ability needs added in. Multi-grab or some such to lessen the penalties or increase some of these primarily grappling creatures' holding abilities. gab-and-lift, maybe?...
I'll think about this some more after watching as many versions of 20,000 leagues under the sea as I can find this week.
Related to this issue is that grapples tend to immobilize you. If a Roc swoops down on someone, grabs him, it can't fly away in the same round (using Flyby attack) because the grappled condition prohibits that.
Snatch universal rule. Basically grab with the ability to throw the grabee as a standard action. Personally, I don't see why this isn't part of Grab to begin with. Then again, I also feel there might be a typo somewhere as snatch specifically says dropping is a free action. admittedly, it's probably just to differentiate from the toss aside addendum, but it does get me thinking a bit...
How is this related? Through the (house rule) solution. Change the rule, so that a creature can continue to grapple a significantly smaller (>2 categories) creature with the limb used to establish the grapple, without -20, and without gaining the grappled condition itself. However, due its grabbing appendage being so big, it can't bring any other appendages to bear against the same victim.Since the [Roc, Kraken] isn't grappled itself, it can move and drag along its victim.
A creature that starts a grapple can still move (at up to half its movement). It doesn't even have to roll to maintain the grapple. However, the grapplee gets a roll to free itself with a +4 bonus (personally I'd amend that with a 'Suckers' universal ability that negates the bonus/puts the onus on the creature's maintain grapple roll and possibly also allows full movement (perhaps dependent on relative size difference)
Since its tentacle is completely wrapped around the poor halfling, it can't grab-constrict the halfling with another tentacle as well. However, it can grab some more people with its other tentacles.
Also, no more grab-constrict-release-grab shenanigans. All those natural attacks that use full BAB happen simultaneously. If someone is grabbed by one limb, it can't be grabbed by another limb.
I agree. Then again, the grab-constrict-release can be done away with just by making it impossible for a grappler to release a grapple on the same turn it is initiated. Death/unconsciousness, of course, releases all relevant conditions. Except when it doesn't.
|
Yes, I apologize if I'm coming across as a bit frustrated. If my math is correct then a creature using these tactics ends up looking like a creature 2 CRs higher.
Remember that most creature need a full attack to make more than an attack, so they can make multiple grab attempts only if they can make a full attack and the target(s) are in reach.
Enter most spellcaster, archer builds, other people with decent ranged attacks and our monster will be unable to use more than 1 attack.
Grab-release don't reduce the target creature movement, so he can take a withdraw action and avoid the monster AoO if it don't have reach. Or he can fight defensively or use total defense while moving away for a decent increase in his AC.
The people that have problems with this kind of monster are those that depend on melee attack to deliver damage.
|
Yes, I apologize if I'm coming across as a bit frustrated. If my math is correct then a creature using these tactics ends up looking like a creature 2 CRs higher.
Remember that most creature need a full attack to make more than an attack, so they can make multiple grab attempts only if they can make a full attack and the target(s) are in reach.
Enter most spellcaster, archer builds, other people with decent ranged attacks and our monster will be unable to use more than 1 attack.
Grab-release don't reduce the target creature movement, so he can take a withdraw action and avoid the monster AoO if it don't have reach. Or he can fight defensively or use total defense while moving away for a decent increase in his AC.The people that have problems with this kind of monster are those that depend on melee attack to deliver damage.
Only if the monster is encountered in an area where there is roomt o retreat from it. This monster, IIRC, is in a very restricted area, where it can easily do 5' steps and do a full attack action. And this tactic is used with it on a single PC, which, if the GM has it go after the right stat, is pretty much a PC-per-turn disabler.
Or if it has pounce, then the whole single attack for a move argument gets killed, anyhow. Charge, pounce, full attack...
|
|
* True story: I was player in an updated game of 'Lost Caverns of Tjoscanth', lots of mountain exploration, lots of giants around. One day, we came across the sound of a giant raid on a gnome village. The GM described a giant stepping round a bend in the path, holding a club in one hand, and a stolen chicken in the other. A shot was fired, and was declared 'a miss, but close'. The player then contested that miss, on the grounds that the giant was holding a chicken, and was thus 'suffering from all the penalties of the grappled condition'.
A debate ensued, in which I was the sole voice in support of the GM, that there should be no game effects for what was obviously a piece of flavour text, and even if it weren't just flavour text, it made no sense that a creature that size should be slowed in any way by a trophy that small. "He probably picks objects out of his nose that weigh more than that chicken" is a phrase that still resonates in my memory.
If someone was mad enough to say that holding in your hand a (probably dead) chicken will subject you to 'all the penalties of the grappled condition' the only reply is saying that his character is constantly suffering it for all the mites living on his body.
- * -
For being grappled or grappling without giving/taking the grappled condition, look the Attach ability of the stirge.
There are a few creatures that don't get the grappled condition while grappling, but the are fairly rare.
- * -
A creature grappling a single target instead of making several grapples and then releasing the target: if the creature goal is to get a meal, maintaining a single grapple is convenient as the creature controlling a grapple can move itself and its target at half speed. Great way to get the prey home for a predator.
Move: You can move both yourself and your target up to half your speed. At the end of your movement, you can place your target in any square adjacent to you. If you attempt to place your foe in a hazardous location, such as in a wall of fire or over a pit, the target receives a free attempt to break your grapple with a +4 bonus.
A creature with the constrict ability can maintain the grapple, move and damage you.
You really want to allow it to negate the malus from being grappled easily?Several of the creatures with the grab ability can move while grabbing someone, so I would make them really devastating.
Well, I think the topic got a bit off course.
Cheese Mode-Hit with +grab, do constrict damage, let go with free action, hit with next tentacle with +grab, do constrict damage, let go with free action, etc. etc. all in the first round.
While I suppose it's legal, it's not RAI. Constrict damage takes TIME. Let me demonstrate. Put your hand in a vise, and then squeeze it to break your hand. That took TIME. Now, put your hand on a table and smash it with a giant hammer. It had exactly the same physical effect (squeezing between two hard objects), but the hammer is just a hit in the game rules.
So, I believe RAI is that you can take CONSTRICT damage just once per round. Otherwise, if it takes no time, then it's the same as doing damage via attacks like getting your hand smashed with a hammer. So, the cheese mode of doing constrict, letting go and hitting with the next limb to do constrict damage again in the same round is not viable.
I have no problem with a creature performing multiple grabs and constricts on multiple targets, but no way does Common Sense not block the 'grab/constrict/drop' cycle. It's bizarre and senseless.
A few have said that damage can drop when maintaining. You don't get to hit multiple targets, but you *do* get the attack damage when you successfully maintain the grapple, in addition to the constrict damage. Every "maintain grapple" check gives you the grapple options of Damage, Move, or Pin. Also, you can power attack during the grapple check (mitigated by the +5 to maintain).
It is a little different than a full attack or pounce, but I'd expect that a creature or character with Greater Grapple and Rapid Grappler can potentially Constrict multiple times per round.