Two light weapons in a grapple?


Rules Questions

51 to 76 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Two-weapon fighting does require two hands. However, TWF is not an action.

Full-attack is an action. Full attack does not require you to use two hands, or even one hand. You simply need to be able to make two or more attacks.

The grappled condition does not specify that you are being held by the arm, or that one of your arms is not able to be used. You can grapple creatures that do not have arms. Creatures without arms can grapple you as long as they have something that can grab you (many creatures grapple with their tail, for example).

Grand Lodge

Oh, and here is the link to the original clarification:

Note:

"The RAW do allow the grappled to make a full attack action, assuming they can do so with only one hand."

and

"I think folks need to remember that the grappled condition is not as severe as it once was. You are no longer draped all over the target. It is more like you got a hold on them, typically an arm (hence the restriction)"

So:
1) Golem gets grappled: can it slam/slam? GM discretion, is the slam a hand attack? I would say yes, so it only gets one. But YMMV

2) Tiger gets grappled: can it claw/claw? No, but it can Bite/Claw (and it gets it's rake for free because you were fool enough to grapple a tiger.) However a thorough reading of the above implies you could choose to grapple the head, allowing it to claw/claw/rake but no bite.

3) Octopus gets grappled: can it tentacle x8? Well, by the first sentance, it only gets one tentacle, but taking the second sentance into consideration, it means it can tentacle x7.

4) Fighter gets grappled: can he armor spikes/dagger? yup

5) Kasatha gets grappled: can it dagger/dagger? yup. As could an alchemist with extra arm.

6) If you grapple a giant scorpion, can you choose which of it's three natural attacks it cannot use? I would say yes.

7) If you grapple a knife fighter and he has a +4 knife in one hand and a shard of glass in the other, can you choose which weapon he is prevented from using? No. You could grapple the knife, but he could shift grips as a free action and have the knife in his hand again.


Peet wrote:

Two-weapon fighting does require two hands. However, TWF is not an action.

Full-attack is an action. Full attack does not require you to use two hands, or even one hand. You simply need to be able to make two or more attacks.

The grappled condition does not specify that you are being held by the arm, or that one of your arms is not able to be used. You can grapple creatures that do not have arms. Creatures without arms can grapple you as long as they have something that can grab you (many creatures grapple with their tail, for example).

That kind of thinking right there breaks the game. If TWF is not an action, why don't I TWF every round since it doesn't take any action to do?

Re-read the Combat Section regarding Full Attacks more closely.

Full Attack wrote:
If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.

Let me get rid of the clutter to make the sentence much more coherent and relevant to the point I'm making.

Full Attack (Edited) wrote:
If you get more than one attack per round because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.

So, TWF is, in fact, a Full Attack, which then makes TWF a Full-Round Action.

Granted, TWF has shown you don't need to actually use your hands to have two weapons, as evidenced by Blade Boots, Armor Spikes, and Unarmed Strikes or other Natural Weapons, you still can't have TWF with both weapons in your hands, you pick one (it should be rolled at random, to be quite honest with you), and then you find another suitable weapon which does not require hands to use.


Reading that link makes me think TWF is not allowed, but that should also apply to claw attacks and/or slams.


Trust me, I read that section quite carefully before making that last post.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
That kind of thinking right there breaks the game. If TWF is not an action, why don't I TWF every round since it doesn't take any action to do?

Because TWF is a feat, not an action. TWF is not a verb and is not something you can "do." The feat merely modifies the attack bonuses and penalties when using two weapons to attack. You do not need TWF to use two weapons to attack.

If by TWF you only mean attacking with two weapons, this is a bit different, but nevertheless attacking with two weapons is merely one way to perform a Full-Attack. It is not its own type of action.

Peet


Peet wrote:


Because TWF is a feat, not an action. TWF is not a verb and is not something you can "do." The feat merely modifies the attack bonuses and penalties when using two weapons to attack. You do not need TWF to use two weapons to attack.

It is both. You can TWF whether you have the feats or not. In the context being talked about here it is the full-attack action where you are using two weapons to fight - and the TWF feat has nothing to do with the discussion.

TWF is a type of full round action. Just like casting a spell is a type of standard action. Or withdrawing is a type of full round action. TWF in this context is an action.


Peet wrote:

Trust me, I read that section quite carefully before making that last post.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
That kind of thinking right there breaks the game. If TWF is not an action, why don't I TWF every round since it doesn't take any action to do?

Because TWF is a feat, not an action. TWF is not a verb and is not something you can "do." The feat merely modifies the attack bonuses and penalties when using two weapons to attack. You do not need TWF to use two weapons to attack.

If by TWF you only mean attacking with two weapons, this is a bit different, but nevertheless attacking with two weapons is merely one way to perform a Full-Attack. It is not its own type of action.

Peet

If you're utilizing TWF rules to use two weapons to gain an extra attack, and both your main-hand weapon and off-hand weapon are hand-associated, then your full-attack, while using the TWF rules elements, is an action that requires both hands. Your view is more like saying, "I can carry a potion in one hand, therefore the 'manipulate an item' action doesn't require two hands so I'll carry this huge item that requires both hands to carry because 'carry using both hands' isn't an action."

Silver Crusade

I think an important thing to remember here is that TWF does not allow you to attack with two weapons, it simply lowers the penalties for doing so. That said, I don't think taking the TWF feat would change anything in regards to actions allowed while grappled.


TWF the feat doesn't allow you to attack with two weapons, but the TWF rules elements outlined in the combat section do and they are rules elements that, by default, must be applied to a specific full-round action (the Full-Attack action). What if it were Power Attack that were restricted? If it said you can't use any action that makes a Power Attack while grappled, and someone argued, "Oh, there isn't a Power Attack action, it's just something you do while making an attack, full-attack, etc. so I can Power Attack just fine while grappled." I can't think of a situation where any sane, competent, and sober person would let that fly. So why is it so hard to apply the same logic to the use of two hands; the action in question doesn't always require the use of both hands, but in the current application of it, using both hands to wield weapons, it requires the use of both hands.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whatever the rule is, it must apply to PCs and NPCs alike, even if some of those NPCs are monsters.

Although the rules are written assuming a humanoid (thus the reference to 'hands' in the grappled condition), they must be extrapolated to apply to claws, tentacles, arms, whatever limbs are used to manipulate objects or execute attacks.

Therefore, 'grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform' could be understood to apply to non-humanoids in the form 'grappled creatures can take no action that requires two (or more) limbs to perform'.

That being the case, the octopus grappling you in a single tentacle can only attack with one of his other tentacles! Because attacking with 7 tentacles definately counts as an action that requires two or more tentacles.

Using weapons, a creature with a BAB of +6 or higher may attack more than once with the same weapon. Natural weapons don't get that. If a beastie has 100 limbs and each limb gets its own attack, if it can't use more than one limb then 99 limbs are useless. Further, a beastie with a BAB of +20 only gets one attack with any single natural attack.

If it's ruled that you can't take a full attack when grappled unless you can use one limb more than once, it will hurt the monsters more than the players, especially the monsters that use grapples as part of their usual attack routine!

I can understand a DM ruling that your grappled PC cannot use TWF, but he might think twice when he realises that the grappling monster cannot benefit from a full attack.

Scarab Sages

Good point Malachi, but the natural weapon rules and their interaction with manufactured weapon and unarmed strike rules are terrible in this game. Why can a bab+0 tengu monk make a claw/claw/bite full attack, but if they flurry they can only make a punch/punch? If they had two weapon fighting they could weapon/weapon/bite.

And what the hell is the difference between an improve unarmed strike and a slam natural weapon? They are both just hitting a creature with part of your body.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Whatever the rule is, it must apply to PCs and NPCs alike, even if some of those NPCs are monsters.

To a limit. Natural weapons and manufactured weapons while they overlap in rule sets are not the same. Nor are you required to know all the rules that a monster or any other creature controlled by the DM might be using.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


Therefore, 'grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform' could be understood to apply to non-humanoids in the form 'grappled creatures can take no action that requires two (or more) limbs to perform'.

That is one way of reading it, but not the only way. The other way to read it is that one of your hands/limbs/tentacles is unavailable. In a bipedal viewpoint the two ways of reading it are equivalent. For a more than two armed creature than you need to decide which viewpoint makes the most sense for your game.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


If it's ruled that you can't take a full attack when grappled unless you can use one limb more than once, it will hurt the monsters more than the players, especially the monsters that use grapples as part of their usual attack routine!

That is not what is being said. No one has said that pathfinder grapple rules prevent you from making a full attack. Got a BAB +16 and dagger? Great, make 4 attacks with that dagger. Got that same BAB and a twin pair of shortswords? Great, make 4 attacks with one of them, but you cannot TWF to get an extra attack because TWF requires a second hand. Got a longsword and that same BAB? Great, make 4 attacks with that longsword at normal x1 strength bonus, but you cannot attack with it and get x1.5 strength bonus because that requires two hands. Your an 8 armed creature in a grapple? Great, make 7 attacks, the eighth arm is unavailable because it is grappled.


bbangerter wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


Therefore, 'grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform' could be understood to apply to non-humanoids in the form 'grappled creatures can take no action that requires two (or more) limbs to perform'.
That is one way of reading it, but not the only way. The other way to read it is that one of your hands/limbs/tentacles is unavailable. In a bipedal viewpoint the two ways of reading it are equivalent. For a more than two armed creature than you need to decide which viewpoint makes the most sense for your game.

There is nothing in the description of grappling in the game or examples of grappling in the real world that says you have to immobilize an arm (I've seen a lot of wrestlers and MMA fighters grapple by grabbing the legs) or any limb at all (I've seen my mother grapple an out-of-control student quite effectively by grabbing a handful of hair, and that "ear pull" that you see in old TV shows still works even though teachers aren't allowed to use it anymore).

There are thousands of methods of grappling in the real world, from submission holds to bear hugs to grabbing clothing to sitting on someone's back. Restricting a grapple to "must grab a limb" seems pretty unnatural. I can't imagine how I would ever catch my cat if I were forced to grab a limb.

(Side note: anyone who doesn't believe an animal gets all of its natural attacks while grappled is welcome to come over to my house and give said cat a bath. I'll even supply the bandages.)


Gwen Smith wrote:


There is nothing in the description of grappling in the game or examples of grappling in the real world that says you have to immobilize an arm...

Oh I agree. But the grapple rules state you cannot do any action that requires two hands (from the bipedal viewpoint). To extend that to multi-armed creatures it can either be taken as you cannot use more than one hand, period, regardless of how many hands you have, or it can be viewed as you lose the use of one hand of those hands.

(And I have no intention of taking up your offer to bathe your cat).


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

Whatever the rule is, it must apply to PCs and NPCs alike, even if some of those NPCs are monsters.

Although the rules are written assuming a humanoid (thus the reference to 'hands' in the grappled condition), they must be extrapolated to apply to claws, tentacles, arms, whatever limbs are used to manipulate objects or execute attacks.

Therefore, 'grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform' could be understood to apply to non-humanoids in the form 'grappled creatures can take no action that requires two (or more) limbs to perform'.

The two is not an accident or arbitrary number; it corresponds to the total number of arms a typical humanoid-shaped creature has. So you need to adjust for creatures with more than two arms not by appending "or more" but by adjusting the number itself; for a four-armed creature, it changes to "(four-armed) grappled creatures can take no action that requires four hands to perform." For the octopus, it goes to "...eight (hand-equivalents) to perform." And this reading covers all the bases; it works in the case of a standard two-armed character as well as any number of arms you can think of. It results in no absurdities and addresses all previously brought up absurdities. Therefore, it is the most reasonable way in which to interpret the passage.


Ha! Typical. I just now bumped an old thread to ask this same question with regards to three-armed monsters. Had no idea this thread even existed. XD

Sczarni

7 people marked this as a favorite.
FLite's link wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Q: Can a monk do a Flurry of Blows during a grapple as it requires a full attack action?

A: (Jason Bulmahn 12/11/09) The RAW do allow the grappled to make a full attack action, assuming they can do so with only one hand. Since flurry does not require two hands to perform, a monk could flurry. Grappling is not always the best idea. Grappling a monk is one such example. I think folks need to remember that the grappled condition is not as severe as it once was. You are no longer draped all over the target. It is more like you got a hold on them, typically an arm (hence the restriction). The pinned condition is more of your greco-roman wrestling hold. [Source] link broken

Q: If I am reading the grapple and flat-footed information correctly a rogue (or other character with Uncanny Dodge) who is PINNED breaks the usual rule of Uncanny Dodge because they keep their DEX mod to AC while immobilized! (because PINNED states a person is FLATFOOTED - not "lose their DEX")?

A: (Jason Bulmahn) There appears to be a little bit of incongruity in the wordings here. A pinned character is immobilized (hence uncanny dodge will not help). I will see that this is clarified. [Source] link broken

Q: The Huge ant-lion was grappling the dire tiger and the guy running the dire tiger wanted to know if he could use his rake attack while being grappled. From reading the rules on Rake it seemed like you could only use it when grappling, not being grappled. Is that correct?

A: As long as the dire tiger had the grappled condition at the start of its turn it can rake.

Wow. I suppose you can't argue with the man himself.

I just think interpreting it the way I was explaining before (and have been playing it for years) lends to a simpler, quicker playthrough, with fewer rules arguments. But if that's how the Developers have been imagining it this whole time, I shall change my practices.

Nice find.

[/thread]

Grand Lodge

Gwen Smith wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


Therefore, 'grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform' could be understood to apply to non-humanoids in the form 'grappled creatures can take no action that requires two (or more) limbs to perform'.
That is one way of reading it, but not the only way. The other way to read it is that one of your hands/limbs/tentacles is unavailable. In a bipedal viewpoint the two ways of reading it are equivalent. For a more than two armed creature than you need to decide which viewpoint makes the most sense for your game.

There is nothing in the description of grappling in the game or examples of grappling in the real world that says you have to immobilize an arm (I've seen a lot of wrestlers and MMA fighters grapple by grabbing the legs) or any limb at all (I've seen my mother grapple an out-of-control student quite effectively by grabbing a handful of hair, and that "ear pull" that you see in old TV shows still works even though teachers aren't allowed to use it anymore).

There are thousands of methods of grappling in the real world, from submission holds to bear hugs to grabbing clothing to sitting on someone's back. Restricting a grapple to "must grab a limb" seems pretty unnatural. I can't imagine how I would ever catch my cat if I were forced to grab a limb.

(Side note: anyone who doesn't believe an animal gets all of its natural attacks while grappled is welcome to come over to my house and give said cat a bath. I'll even supply the bandages.)

Most systems I have run into consider the head and tail (if any) to be limbs for the purposes of grappling. So typically, you would grapple a cat by the neck, immobilizing its head.

Silver Crusade

FLite wrote:
Most systems I have run into consider the head and tail (if any) to be limbs for the purposes of grappling. So typically, you would grapple a cat by the neck, immobilizing its head.

Fair enough, but if my head is immobilised then I can use both my hands, right?

Quote:
grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform

So, a creature can take an action that requires three hands to perform?

It can't mean that.

However, it doesn't say that you can't use (only) one of your limbs, that you are denied the use of a single limb. It could easily say that, and if it did then the octopus could use the other six or seven.

So, if it can't mean 'exactly two', and it's not saying that 'you can't use one of your limbs', then the only thing left is that it means that you can't use 'two or more limbs' when grappled.

We also know that tigers can use multiple attacks with different limbs when they have the grappled condition, so it can't be that either!

The only remaining possibility is that you can't use both hands to make the same attack, or use anything two-handed.

Grand Lodge

From Jason Bulman's clarification wrote:


"I think folks need to remember that the grappled condition is not as severe as it once was. You are no longer draped all over the target. It is more like you got a hold on them, typically an arm (hence the restriction)"

So he really *is* saying "They have grabbed one of your limbs, so you can't use that one limb."

So yes, if your head is immobilized, you still get both hands.

and it you read the full post it is clear that when Jason says

Quote:


"The RAW do allow the grappled to make a full attack action, assuming they can do so with only one hand."

He is refering to bipedal humans without bite attacks, and a fuller phrasing would be "The RAW do allow the grappled to make a full attack action, assuming they can do so without the grappled limb."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
FLite's link wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Q: Can a monk do a Flurry of Blows during a grapple as it requires a full attack action?

A: (Jason Bulmahn 12/11/09) The RAW do allow the grappled to make a full attack action, assuming they can do so with only one hand. Since flurry does not require two hands to perform, a monk could flurry. Grappling is not always the best idea. Grappling a monk is one such example. I think folks need to remember that the grappled condition is not as severe as it once was. You are no longer draped all over the target. It is more like you got a hold on them, typically an arm (hence the restriction). The pinned condition is more of your greco-roman wrestling hold. [Source] link broken link found

Q: If I am reading the grapple and flat-footed information correctly a rogue (or other character with Uncanny Dodge) who is PINNED breaks the usual rule of Uncanny Dodge because they keep their DEX mod to AC while immobilized! (because PINNED states a person is FLATFOOTED - not "lose their DEX")?

A: (Jason Bulmahn 8/25/2009) There appears to be a little bit of incongruity in the wordings here. A pinned character is immobilized (hence uncanny dodge will not help). I will see that this is clarified. [Source] link broken link found

Q: The Huge ant-lion was grappling the dire tiger and the guy running the dire tiger wanted to know if he could use his rake attack while being grappled. From reading the rules on Rake it seemed like you could only use it when grappling, not being grappled. Is that correct?
almost source

A: As long as the dire tiger had the grappled condition at the start of its turn it can rake.

Wow. I suppose you can't argue with the man himself.

I just think interpreting it the way I was explaining before (and have been playing it for years) lends to a simpler, quicker playthrough, with fewer rules arguments. But if that's how the Developers have been imagining it this whole time, I shall change my practices.

Nice...

Found links.

/cevah

Silver Crusade

FLite wrote:
From Jason Bulman's clarification wrote:


"I think folks need to remember that the grappled condition is not as severe as it once was. You are no longer draped all over the target. It is more like you got a hold on them, typically an arm (hence the restriction)"

So he really *is* saying "They have grabbed one of your limbs, so you can't use that one limb."

So yes, if your head is immobilized, you still get both hands.

and it you read the full post it is clear that when Jason says

Quote:


"The RAW do allow the grappled to make a full attack action, assuming they can do so with only one hand."

He is refering to bipedal humans without bite attacks, and a fuller phrasing would be "The RAW do allow the grappled to make a full attack action, assuming they can do so without the grappled limb."

Hmmmm.

It seems as though the grapple victim is the one who chooses which limb is immobilised, as long as that limb has a hand attached.

I guess that part makes sense, but it's strange that this limb isn't chosen at the time of the grapple, but at the moment the target wants to attack. It's Schrödinger's Limb until then...!


The whole system is based in quantum uncertainty. 6 seconds of combat just happened. They're done, completed, finished. The characters know what happened already; they lived it (and some may have died it). But the players don't know what happened; that's what all the dice rolling is about; the players finding out what their characters already know. Same applies to Knowledge checks. You roll a Knowledge check and it isn't like your character just learned that information on the spot. He's known that information for years, but, just as he's not supposed to use Out-of-Character knowledge, you're not supposed to have Out-of-Player knowledge. So you roll Knowledge to see what the character has known all along, having learned it long ago.

Silver Crusade

Kazaan wrote:
The whole system is based in quantum uncertainty. 6 seconds of combat just happened. They're done, completed, finished. The characters know what happened already; they lived it (and some may have died it). But the players don't know what happened; that's what all the dice rolling is about; the players finding out what their characters already know. Same applies to Knowledge checks. You roll a Knowledge check and it isn't like your character just learned that information on the spot. He's known that information for years, but, just as he's not supposed to use Out-of-Character knowledge, you're not supposed to have Out-of-Player knowledge. So you roll Knowledge to see what the character has known all along, having learned it long ago.

I'm completely on board with accepting a certain amount of unreality in order to make the game playable. Taking turns instead of the simultaneous actions it's supposed to represent, make knowledge checks instead of knowing that information the whole time; how else are we to play these things?

But quantum uncertainty should be kept to a minimum. There is no need to have a quantum limb here, when the rule could easily (and more sensibly) be that the limb is defined either when the grapple is attempted or when the grapple succeeds.

Quote:
...it's strange that this limb isn't chosen at the time of the grapple, but at the moment the target wants to attack

It's even stranger than this! Let our PC be wearing a cold iron spiked gauntlet on his left hand and a silver spiked gauntlet on his right. When grappled, he is free to attack with either, but not both. In round one he could attack with his left. In round two he wants to attack with both, but the DM says that after he has attacked with the first attack (his right) then that prevents him from attacking with his left. Why? Because his left is immobilised by the grapple. Round three: attack with his left? No problem. Okay, for my second attack I'll follow with a right. No can do; your right is immobilised by the grapple....(?)


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
The whole system is based in quantum uncertainty. 6 seconds of combat just happened. They're done, completed, finished. The characters know what happened already; they lived it (and some may have died it). But the players don't know what happened; that's what all the dice rolling is about; the players finding out what their characters already know. Same applies to Knowledge checks. You roll a Knowledge check and it isn't like your character just learned that information on the spot. He's known that information for years, but, just as he's not supposed to use Out-of-Character knowledge, you're not supposed to have Out-of-Player knowledge. So you roll Knowledge to see what the character has known all along, having learned it long ago.

I'm completely on board with accepting a certain amount of unreality in order to make the game playable. Taking turns instead of the simultaneous actions it's supposed to represent, make knowledge checks instead of knowing that information the whole time; how else are we to play these things?

But quantum uncertainty should be kept to a minimum. There is no need to have a quantum limb here, when the rule could easily (and more sensibly) be that the limb is defined either when the grapple is attempted or when the grapple succeeds.

Quote:
...it's strange that this limb isn't chosen at the time of the grapple, but at the moment the target wants to attack
It's even stranger than this! Let our PC be wearing a cold iron spiked gauntlet on his left hand and a silver spiked gauntlet on his right. When grappled, he is free to attack with either, but not both. In round one he could attack with his left. In round two he wants to attack with both, but the DM says that after he has attacked with the first attack (his right) then that prevents him from attacking with his left. Why? Because his left is immobilised by the grapple. Round three: attack with his left? No problem. Okay, for my second attack I'll...

The rules are abstract in this regard for a reason, and that's because the players need to use common sense for each situation. The players who are being grappled shouldn't get a choice as to which limb is grappled, that's something the one who initiates the grapple designates when he makes his roll; he's the one trying to grab a limb, and I'm pretty sure a PC doesn't just want to let something grab them in the midst of combat. Obviously, once a limb is grappled, that limb remains the one to be nullified at all times. Of course, the creature who initiated can choose to nullify a separate limb if he wants, with a successful Grapple check to maintain instead of one of the other options.

This sort of thing should be expanded to following Called Shot rules in regards to respective grapple penalties involving limbs; for example, instead of grappling a given hand, nullifying any actions that can be made with that hand, I could instead grapple a leg, and force them to move at half speed, being down a leg and all to move. Or a Wing to hamper fly speed and fly checks.

51 to 76 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Two light weapons in a grapple? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.