Two light weapons in a grapple?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

9 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Here's something that came up in our game tonight: I stepped up to a beastie and full-attacked it with TWF and a pair of spiked gauntlets. I have TWF, ImpTWF, Double Slice and a BAB of +7. so I get four attacks in this full attack, two with each gauntlet.

No problem so far. On its turn the beastie hits me with one claw, and makes a grapple check as a free action as part of that attack, successfully grappling me.

The Grappled Condition wrote:
In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform.

Each of my attacks takes only one hand to perform, so it seems like I can do as many of those as I like. On the other hand (sorry!) the full attack with TWF takes two hands to perform, although a normal full attack doesn't require two hands in and of itself.

The beastie died before we had to make a decision, but I honestly don't know which is the correct answer.

Can a grappled creature execute a full attack with Two-Weapon Fighting, attacking with a light weapon in each hand?


Each action(Attack) only requires one hand if using TWF, while swinging a two handed weapon is an action that requires two hands.

I don't see attacking with two weapons as any different than using a full round attack to use punches for unarmed strikes or making claw attacks. Both of which are allowed.

Silver Crusade

I usually check out the 3.5 rules (for better explanations, example and clarity) on the grounds that the rules are the same...unless PF changed them. Here, 3.5 states that you cannot attack with TWF even if both weapons are light.

However, grapple is one rule that PF deliberately changed, making it a less harsh condition all round. But I don't know the answer to this in PF, and I can't go to 3.5 for a definitive answer in this case because PF changed grappling quite substantially.


My GM ruled grappled => no TWF. :-(

YMMV.

If ever a FAQ happens, I would be interested.

/cevah

Sczarni

The only thing that Pathfinder limits is the use of anything that requires both hands to perform, like swinging a two-handed weapon.

Performing natural attacks like claw/claw/bite or using two-weapon fighting to stab with dagger/dagger is totally legit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

TWFing takes both hands by virtue that you're using both hands to attack. Full-Attack used to TWF is an action that requires both hands to perform. It doesn't matter that the hands are used independently of each other for each individual attack.


I think they meant action in the general sense not the game term "action".


You should be allowed to do it. A homebrew ruling can say no, but if you want to go by the rules you can do it.

As Nefreet put it, as you grapple the beast, does the beast get to make all of its claw attacks, or just 1 claw attack, when grappled? The GM will of course say all claw attacks. Well, same thing with humans.

As for TWF, the feat, requiring 2 hands, I would say that it is to say that the off-hand is not as penalized because you are used to fighting with a weapon in each hand. It's not really a fighting "style" that requires two hands (something that if you miss with one hand, you auto miss or have a big penalty with the other hand). Using this logic to deny the plain text and intent on grapple really is stretching things.


While each attack individually only requires one hand, the "Full Attack Action" requires both to be effective; grapple states "grappled creature can take no action which requires 2 hands to perform." So no, you would not be able to use TWF + associated feats.


Nefreet wrote:

The only thing that Pathfinder limits is the use of anything that requires both hands to perform, like swinging a two-handed weapon.

Performing natural attacks like claw/claw/bite or using two-weapon fighting to stab with dagger/dagger is totally legit.

I really think that 2 claws require more than 1 hand to perform. I can see the bite attack working, maybe, but 1 bite+1 claw also takes more than 1 hand to perform. 1 hand + 1 mouth > than 1 hand.

You could still Flurry while Grappled, but you don't need both hands to Flurry.

If you are entitled to more than 1 attack due to high BAB, you still are even when grappled, but you don't have to do that with 2 hands, either.

I could see a DM allowing a grappled opponent using a 2 handed weapon 1 handed at the -4 nonproficiency penalty while grappled, but I'm pretty sure you are only allowed to use Light or Natural weapons or Unarmed Strikes in a Grapple, unless you have some special ability, like that granted by the Hamatula Strike Feat.


Trekkie90909 wrote:
While each attack individually only requires one hand, the "Full Attack Action" requires both to be effective; grapple states "grappled creature can take no action which requires 2 hands to perform." So no, you would not be able to use TWF + associated feats.

So a can monk flurry with two unarmed strikes, right? Neither one requires the hands at all.

And then could the same monk flurry with one weapon and one unarmed strike? Only one hand is full, so this should still be fine.

But then, why can't he flurry with two one-handed weapons? The action is exactly the same, they all take a full attack action, but this one is not valid?

What if I use a one-handed weapon and a boot blade or armor spikes or a spiked helmet? None of those take up a "hand" so they should be OK, right?

What about a cestus or a spiked gauntlet? They are on the hand, but I can still carry and wield other weapons in that hand, so...?


From the D20PFSRD:

Grappled wrote:

A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. 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.

A grappled creature cannot use Stealth to hide from the creature grappling it, even if a special ability, such as hide in plain sight, would normally allow it to do so. If a grappled creature becomes invisible, through a spell or other ability, it gains a +2 circumstance bonus on its CMD to avoid being grappled, but receives no other benefit.

In regards to the OP and "two light weapons," it becomes a corner-case issue, given the bolded part above, because making attacks with light weapons can be subjects that do not require hands to perform. Bite Attacks, Unarmed Strikes (with Legs and Elbows, or even a Headbutt), Spiked Armor, etc. are all attacks that don't really require hands to perform.

However, if you were to TWF and you tried to use both weapons in your hands, you wouldn't be able to because of the bolded clause; you are using two hands to perform the TWF action, and therefore that becomes an action you can't take. If, on the other hand, you were trying to use just one weapon in your hand, and an Unarmed Strike with your leg, it becomes a valid action you can take.


Gwen Smith wrote:
Trekkie90909 wrote:
While each attack individually only requires one hand, the "Full Attack Action" requires both to be effective; grapple states "grappled creature can take no action which requires 2 hands to perform." So no, you would not be able to use TWF + associated feats.

So a can monk flurry with two unarmed strikes, right? Neither one requires the hands at all.

And then could the same monk flurry with one weapon and one unarmed strike? Only one hand is full, so this should still be fine.

But then, why can't he flurry with two one-handed weapons? The action is exactly the same, they all take a full attack action, but this one is not valid?

What if I use a one-handed weapon and a boot blade or armor spikes or a spiked helmet? None of those take up a "hand" so they should be OK, right?

What about a cestus or a spiked gauntlet? They are on the hand, but I can still carry and wield other weapons in that hand, so...?

Good point; what I should have said earlier is that you can't make a full attack action while in grapple; you can either break grapple (free action), gain dominance (standard action), or maintain grapple (option of dealing damage with a single attack, moving yourself + enemy, or pinning them) a standard action.


Trekkie90909 wrote:
Gwen Smith wrote:
Trekkie90909 wrote:
While each attack individually only requires one hand, the "Full Attack Action" requires both to be effective; grapple states "grappled creature can take no action which requires 2 hands to perform." So no, you would not be able to use TWF + associated feats.

So a can monk flurry with two unarmed strikes, right? Neither one requires the hands at all.

And then could the same monk flurry with one weapon and one unarmed strike? Only one hand is full, so this should still be fine.

But then, why can't he flurry with two one-handed weapons? The action is exactly the same, they all take a full attack action, but this one is not valid?

What if I use a one-handed weapon and a boot blade or armor spikes or a spiked helmet? None of those take up a "hand" so they should be OK, right?

What about a cestus or a spiked gauntlet? They are on the hand, but I can still carry and wield other weapons in that hand, so...?

Good point; what I should have said earlier is that you can't make a full attack action while in grapple; you can either break grapple (free action), gain dominance (standard action), or maintain grapple (option of dealing damage with a single attack, moving yourself + enemy, or pinning them) a standard action.

That is not true, which is why I brought up the question of using claw attacks vs attacking with weapons. If you can use 2 claws there is no reason to not be able to use two-weapons.

There is nothing in the grapple rules saying you cant make a full round attack, and nothing says you have to try to break free or reverse the grapple.

The rules specifically say you can make a full attack while grappled.


There seems to be some confusion here. It requires no hands at all to make a full-attack action.

Example 1: You are being attacked by a Death Dog. The dog has two heads and two bite attacks. In order to use both bite attacks in one round it must make a full-attack action. Neither attack requires any hands, and it has no hands anyway.

Example 2: A character with a sword and shield has a base attack bonus of +6. He may therefore make 2 iterative attacks on his turn with his sword if he uses a full-attack action. This only requires the use of the hand that is holding the sword.

The only thing that is required in the text of the Full-Attack rule is the ability to make more than one attack in a round. It doesn't matter how you get those attacks.

PRD wrote:

Full Attack

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. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What they should have said was any "Act", not "action" requiring two hands is prohibited.


wraithstrike wrote:
Trekkie90909 wrote:
Gwen Smith wrote:
Trekkie90909 wrote:
While each attack individually only requires one hand, the "Full Attack Action" requires both to be effective; grapple states "grappled creature can take no action which requires 2 hands to perform." So no, you would not be able to use TWF + associated feats.

So a can monk flurry with two unarmed strikes, right? Neither one requires the hands at all.

And then could the same monk flurry with one weapon and one unarmed strike? Only one hand is full, so this should still be fine.

But then, why can't he flurry with two one-handed weapons? The action is exactly the same, they all take a full attack action, but this one is not valid?

What if I use a one-handed weapon and a boot blade or armor spikes or a spiked helmet? None of those take up a "hand" so they should be OK, right?

What about a cestus or a spiked gauntlet? They are on the hand, but I can still carry and wield other weapons in that hand, so...?

Good point; what I should have said earlier is that you can't make a full attack action while in grapple; you can either break grapple (free action), gain dominance (standard action), or maintain grapple (option of dealing damage with a single attack, moving yourself + enemy, or pinning them) a standard action.

That is not true, which is why I brought up the question of using claw attacks vs attacking with weapons. If you can use 2 claws there is no reason to not be able to use two-weapons.

There is nothing in the grapple rules saying you cant make a full round attack, and nothing says you have to try to break free or reverse the grapple.

The rules specifically say you can make a full attack while grappled.

False. They specifically say that in order to do anything while grappled you have to maintain the grapple as a standard action. Greater grapple will get this down to a move action, but you cannot perform either action in the same round as a full round action.

Liberty's Edge

It is a doubt I too have had some time. The rules seem to allow it but coming from the 3.X versions of the game it seem strange.

FAQed

Just to add confusion:
you would allow a magus to sue spell combat? It require 2 hands like TWF, but each action in it is performed using 1 hand at a time.


Trekkie90909 wrote:
False. They specifically say that in order to do anything while grappled you have to maintain the grapple as a standard action. Greater grapple will get this down to a move action, but you cannot perform either action in the same round as a full round action.

That is only for the creature controlling the grapple. You said the other person was restricted which is not true.

Quote:
If You Are Grappled: If you are grappled, you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action by making a combat maneuver check (DC equal to your opponent's CMD; this does not provoke an attack of opportunity) or Escape Artist check (with a DC equal to your opponent's CMD). If you succeed, you break the grapple and can act normally. Alternatively, if you succeed, you can become the grappler, grappling the other creature (meaning that the other creature cannot freely release the grapple without making a combat maneuver check, while you can). Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that doesn't require two hands to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you. See the grappled condition for additional details. If you are pinned, your actions are very limited. See the pinned condition in Conditions for additional details.


Diego Rossi wrote:

It is a doubt I too have had some time. The rules seem to allow it but coming from the 3.X versions of the game it seem strange.

FAQed

Just to add confusion:
you would allow a magus to sue spell combat? It require 2 hands like TWF, but each action in it is performed using 1 hand at a time.

Yeah I would allow it. Each hand is performing a separate action.


Well that certainly makes the question more interesting. A couple people have brought up monks, but since Paizo has ruled they can make their full flurry of blows with a single weapon (i.e. one hand) I'd say that's more a distraction than a real contribution to the subject.

If you read the description on armor spikes it implies they are intended for use as an "off hand" weapon in grapple, so I would say it's fine to use TWF so long as the TWF action does not involve the use of both hands.

In the boot blade example above it's reasonable to assume that an enemy would not anticipate that, but on the other hand you might not be able to use it effectively since it requires distance or flexibility to use with any accuracy.

I'd say there's enough leeway to warrant a FAQ.

Liberty's Edge

I don't know, it seem that the benefit for the grappled creature is too strong. I hope it will get a reply from the Dev team.


wraithstrike wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

It is a doubt I too have had some time. The rules seem to allow it but coming from the 3.X versions of the game it seem strange.

FAQed

Just to add confusion:
you would allow a magus to sue spell combat? It require 2 hands like TWF, but each action in it is performed using 1 hand at a time.

Yeah I would allow it. Each hand is performing a separate action.

No, each hand is performing a separate attack; but they are all encompassed in a single full-attack action. If one of your hands is immobilized to the point that you can't use it to wield a 2-h weapon, what makes you think it's perfectly fine to wield two single-handed weapons just because the arms are working independently? One of your arms is out of commission for the duration of the grapple; that covers both the use of both hands on a single task as well as each hand on a separate task. You only get to do things that require all of one hand. That could be attack with a dagger + armor spikes, dagger + kick, kick + kick, etc; but not dagger + dagger unless you have sufficient diplomacy to convince the grappler to kindly switch to your other arm so you can attack with your other dagger.

Sczarni

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

From the D20PFSRD:

Grappled wrote:

A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. 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.

A grappled creature cannot use Stealth to hide from the creature grappling it, even if a special ability, such as hide in plain sight, would normally allow it to do so. If a grappled creature becomes invisible, through a spell or other ability, it gains a +2 circumstance bonus on its CMD to avoid being grappled, but receives no other benefit.

In regards to the OP and "two light weapons," it becomes a corner-case issue, given the bolded part above, because making attacks with light weapons can be subjects that do not require hands to perform. Bite Attacks, Unarmed Strikes (with Legs and Elbows, or even a Headbutt), Spiked Armor, etc. are all attacks that don't really require hands to perform.

However, if you were to TWF and you tried to use both weapons in your hands, you wouldn't be able to because of the bolded clause; you are using two hands to perform the TWF action, and therefore that becomes an action you can't take. If, on the other hand, you were trying to use just one weapon in your hand, and an Unarmed Strike with your leg, it becomes a valid action you can take.

We are reading the same bolded clause and coming to different conclusions.

Sczarni

What are some actions that require "two hands to perform"? Perhaps we should make a list:

1) Using a two-handed weapon (or a one-handed weapon in two hands)
2) Using "most projectile weapons", including bows
3) Throwing a two-handed weapon that "isn't designed to be thrown"


wraithstrike wrote:
Trekkie90909 wrote:
False. They specifically say that in order to do anything while grappled you have to maintain the grapple as a standard action. Greater grapple will get this down to a move action, but you cannot perform either action in the same round as a full round action.

That is only for the creature controlling the grapple. You said the other person was restricted which is not true.

Quote:
If You Are Grappled: If you are grappled, you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action by making a combat maneuver check (DC equal to your opponent's CMD; this does not provoke an attack of opportunity) or Escape Artist check (with a DC equal to your opponent's CMD). If you succeed, you break the grapple and can act normally. Alternatively, if you succeed, you can become the grappler, grappling the other creature (meaning that the other creature cannot freely release the grapple without making a combat maneuver check, while you can). Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that doesn't require two hands to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you. See the grappled condition for additional details. If you are pinned, your actions are very limited. See the pinned condition in Conditions for additional details.

I agree. You are never obliged to take any actions to maintain a grappler.

If you are the one in control of the grapple, you can elect to use your Standard Action for anything you can use a Standard Action for. If you don't use it to maintain the Grapple, you fail to maintain the Grapple, and your would-be victim goes free this round.

If you are not the one in control of the grapple, you likewise do not have to maintain the grapple. You can use your actions any way you want or else not. It is entirely up to the wrestler attacking you to use his actions to twist off your arms, tie you up, swallow you whole or whatever else it is he, she, or it wants to do.

"Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself!"


Quote:
..such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach..

The rules say 'a weapon' .. singular. You need more than one weapon for TWF.

Sczarni

Eridan wrote:
Quote:
..such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach..
The rules say 'a weapon' .. singular. You need more than one weapon for TWF.

Let me flip this around for a second. If the person being grappled is holding 2 daggers and has a BAB +7, they could, according to the TWF FAQ make an attack with one of their daggers (say it's cold iron), find out it's not effective, and make their second attack, which is at BAB +2 with their Silver Dagger. That's not TWF. Are you claiming that this full-attack action is prohibited by the part you bolded?


Two Weapon Fighting is an activity requiring two hands.. im not sure how one would argue against that.

Silver Crusade

In 3.5 a grappled creature could only attack with a light weapon. In PF he can attack with any light or one-handed weapon. This is just one of the things that's changed, and all in the direction of making being grappled less harsh.

So what does the grappled condition represent? Does it mean that the enemy has hold of one arm? Which arm? At no point does the grappler nominate a specific arm and deny you the use of that particular arm. On your turn you can attack him with either hand, your choice, and the grappler doesn't get a say in it. What if the grappler wants hold of a leg? How would that stop you using both hands? The rules don't allow the grappler a choice in the matter.

Say that I've got a longsword in my right and a short sword in my left. I get grappled. On my turn I am free to attack with the longsword if I choose. I could also attack with the short sword if I choose. If, conceptually, I am held in such a way that I can attack with either, and I get two attacks, why can't I attack with one and then the other? What has magically prevented my short sword from working after I use my longsword when nothing was stopping my short sword before?

But if I can attack with either, what does '...can take no action that requires two hands to perform', and what is this, conceptually?

It seems that you are prevented from using both hands together, like attacking with a two-handed weapon. It seems that being grappled prevents you from getting leverage.

What do you think is happening, conceptually, in a grapple which restricts you? What does Paizo think is happening?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I really thought a FAQ came out that clarified this, as I was allowing it until that point... regardless, in the end it is pretty clear that TWF generally requires two hands.

Krodjin: In your example you are taking a full-attack action, and attacking with two separate hands. That would not be possible in a grapple either.

Sczarni

Majuba wrote:

I really thought a FAQ came out that clarified this, as I was allowing it until that point... regardless, in the end it is pretty clear that TWF generally requires two hands.

Krodjin: In your example you are taking a full-attack action, and attacking with two separate hands. That would not be possible in a grapple either.

so if I have a BAB of +11 and quickdraw can I make attacks with 3 different one-handed or light weapons in a grapple?

If I have Improved Unarmed Strikes I can TWF without using any hands - or is that prohibited as well?

There are a lot of ways to TWF without using two hands. There are ways to make a full-attack that use both hands independently but don't actually require using two hands at once.


Mojorat wrote:
Two Weapon Fighting is an activity requiring two hands.. im not sure how one would argue against that.

+1


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krodjin wrote:
Eridan wrote:
Quote:
..such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach..
The rules say 'a weapon' .. singular. You need more than one weapon for TWF.
Let me flip this around for a second. If the person being grappled is holding 2 daggers and has a BAB +7, they could, according to the TWF FAQ make an attack with one of their daggers (say it's cold iron), find out it's not effective, and make their second attack, which is at BAB +2 with their Silver Dagger. That's not TWF. Are you claiming that this full-attack action is prohibited by the part you bolded?

Yes, it would be. Regardless of whether or not you're using the TWF rules to gain an extra attack via off-hand, or simply using two different hands to make your normal allowance of BAB attacks, you're still using both hands; you're using both of them independently, but you're still using both of them. Pathfinder is, very much, a game of abstraction and quantum uncertainty. You have no actual facing, but it's abstracted by the Flanking rules; you have no dominant hand and are considered effectively ambidextrous when using multiple weapons; all turns happen in parallel but you don't know what an opponent did in that same 6s time interval until their turn has been resolved; so on and so forth. So when you are being grappled, one of your arms is out of commission but you don't find out which one it is until you decide to use one of your arms for some task; once you've applied one arm to an action, by default, the other arm must be the one out of commission because of the grapple. So if you had a Mithral dagger in one hand and a Cold Iron dagger in the other, you can normally assign them independently to your normal iterative attacks and it isn't TWF, but that still requires both hands to do so. So if you are grappled, once you attack with one of your daggers, that establishes it as the hand that is still free to act. But using the actual TWF rules to gain an extra attack necessitates the use of both hands so it's pointless to even declare it in the first place. Think of it this way; imagine it wasn't the hand but rather one of your legs that was restrained. You can't perform a task that requires both legs, but you don't know which leg is actually restrained. Would you say you can walk just fine since you alternate legs; that the restraint "passes" to whichever leg isn't currently being used for something and only actions that require simultaneous use of both legs are prevented? That would be absurd. So why wouldn't that same principal apply to the hands?


the only interesting thing I see...

what if its a PC that has control of the grapple.

as the controller.. I have two attacks (or more) but as the one in control, standard action to maintain the grapple and inflict damge (once)

the victim on the other hand has multiple attacks and bam I can get hit twice or more.

wait a sec, I thought i was the one that was in control?

they wanted to make grappled a little less severe but in turn made it feat intensive to be a grappler.

Sczarni

I've been playing Pathfinder for almost 4 years now, and PFS for 2. I've never heard anyone argue that you couldn't use TWF when grappled. Nobody blinks when the Tiger that the Tetori grappled turns around and does a claw/claw/bite, or the poor rogue who can't escape a grapple opts to stab/stab instead. Grappling is a regular feature of the game, and if you couldn't TWF, surely someone over the years would have pointed out a rule preventing you from doing so.

I'm not shocked by many rules interpretations any more, but this legitimately floors me. Re-quoting the same bolded clause and interpreting it in a different way each time isn't going to convince either side, and claiming/disagreeing that TWF uses "two hands to perform" will have the same impact.

Surely this debate was had long ago. It must have been. We should search for older discussions on the matter.

Sczarni

1) Golem gets grappled: can it slam/slam?
2) Tiger gets grappled: can it claw/claw?
3) Octopus gets grappled: can it tentacle x8?
4) Fighter gets grappled: can he armor spikes/dagger?
5) Kasatha gets grappled: can it dagger/dagger?

Sczarni

The only reasonable interpretation I can see is limiting actions that can only be performed with two hands, such as the 3 I listed earlier (and possibly more, if anyone has any).

To do so otherwise only invokes arguments about corner cases, like a creature without discernible limbs but that still has natural attacks. Or Armor Spikes/Boot Blades, resulting in the same number of attacks as Dagger/Dagger.

And who's to say that the legs aren't the "limbs" being grappled, anyways? Wrestling was my sport in high school. In order to grapple, you usually went for the legs first. It was their arms you went for after that to pin them.


Kazaan wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

It is a doubt I too have had some time. The rules seem to allow it but coming from the 3.X versions of the game it seem strange.

FAQed

Just to add confusion:
you would allow a magus to sue spell combat? It require 2 hands like TWF, but each action in it is performed using 1 hand at a time.

Yeah I would allow it. Each hand is performing a separate action.
No, each hand is performing a separate attack; but they are all encompassed in a single full-attack action. If one of your hands is immobilized to the point that you can't use it to wield a 2-h weapon, what makes you think it's perfectly fine to wield two single-handed weapons just because the arms are working independently? One of your arms is out of commission for the duration of the grapple; that covers both the use of both hands on a single task as well as each hand on a separate task. You only get to do things that require all of one hand. That could be attack with a dagger + armor spikes, dagger + kick, kick + kick, etc; but not dagger + dagger unless you have sufficient diplomacy to convince the grappler to kindly switch to your other arm so you can attack with your other dagger.

You missed my earlier post where I think the use of the word "Action" is not referring to the game term action. Therefore the action is the attacks on their own, not the full round attack itself. That is where our disagreement is.


Eridan wrote:
Quote:
..such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach..
The rules say 'a weapon' .. singular. You need more than one weapon for TWF.

The rules also say "spells" plural when qualifying for prestige classes, but the intent is singular. If they had said you are restricted to only use one weapon, that would be different. It would also shut off natural attacks which are allowed, and are also light weapons.


Nefreet wrote:

1) Golem gets grappled: can it slam/slam? No. Just oen slam because it can't use both hands while grappled.

2) Tiger gets grappled: can it claw/claw? Yes, but only because it has the Rake ability that explicitly lets you get a pair of "extra" claw attacks while grappled. So a Tiger with 2 claws, a bite, and the Rake special (worth 2 additional claw attacks) can make a total of 3 claw and 1 bite attack while grappling.
3) Octopus gets grappled: can it tentacle x8? It's reasonable to presume that a tentacle takes the place of a hand in this case so only 7 tentacles.
4) Fighter gets grappled: can he armor spikes/dagger? Yes because it only takes one hand to attack with armor spikes and a dagger.
5) Kasatha gets grappled: can it dagger/dagger? Yes because, even if it is grappled, it still has 3 available arms to utilize.

Answers now with 100% more bold flavor.

Sczarni

But, see, there are a few problems with each of those.

1) People disagree on whether slams require hands, or even arms, so claiming that you can't use two arms when grappled will only generate more arguments.

If you limited it to actions that can only be performed with two hands, this argument goes away, and the golem can slam/slam.

2) The rake ability states that the creature must be grappling its foe, which I take to mean being in control of the grapple. But, I find it weird that you'd still allow 3 claw attacks, because doesn't that require 3 "hands"? Nothing in the rake ability claims that the creature uses its "back claws", and some creatures don't have "back claws" at all.

Doesn't it make more sense that the Tiger can simply claw/claw/bite, rather than parsing out what are considered its "hands"?

3) Same thing as #2. Why 7 tentacles? Why not only 1?

4) What is the relevant distinction between getting two attacks and getting only one? Who are you punishing? Why are you doing it? If one creature can, by using Two-Weapon Fighting, why can't the next? Isn't it a bit arbitrary?

5) But, isn't the Kasatha still using "two hands"?

If it had 4 daggers, and was grappled, how is that different than a human with 2 daggers? Isn't stab/stab the same for both?

Wouldn't it make more sense to say that neither can swing a greatsword, but that dagger/dagger is fine, no matter how many hands you have?

Each of these above circumstances, if interpreting the rules as you do, have problems. None of them do if you go with the only interpretation I've ever known.

Which is easier to go by?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:


4) Fighter gets grappled: can he armor spikes/dagger? Yes because it only takes one hand to attack with armor spikes and a dagger.

Well that depends on whether grapple refers to actual hands or the metaphysical hands that prevent a two handed weapon/boot blade combo as part of TWF.


Nefreet wrote:


3) Same thing as #2. Why 7 tentacles? Why not only 1?

Rules are written with bipeds in mind. Adapt accordingly when not.


sooo...

lets reverse the situation then.

where is the benefit of contolling the grapple?

as the contoller I must use my standard action (without a feat) to maintain and get only 1 attack for damage. (despite having multiple attacks)

the defender getting grappled may get that claw/claw/.bite for three attacks and possibly three times the injuries.

seems to be I'd rather be a victim.

Grand Lodge

You get to pin and tie up the enemy.

You can let go and walk away, he can't (useful when you need to take someone alive and they just want to run away.)

You can re-position him over a cliff, and then drop him.

So you take reduced damage dealing potential in exchange for being able to dictate the terms of the fight, including the ability to end it via pin and tie-up.

Sczarni

Edward Sobel wrote:
where is the benefit of contolling the grapple?

I can think of few situations where a player was happy that their PC was grappled*.

I think the benefits are obvious:

- You're preventing something from getting away.
- It has a lower AC against your friends
- If you're aquatic, you can drag the prey you just grabbed from the boat further underwater
- Constrict damage
- Death roll
- Swallow whole
- The ability to pin, then tie up

And probably a few more. That was just off the top of my head.

*:
There was one time where my natural attacking Tengu was grappled by a Purple Worm, after I had Resist Energy (Acid) cast on me. I wanted to be swallowed whole, because I couldn't hit the thing from the outside. The idea of clawing my way out of its stomach sounded epic. Unfortunately I didn't get my wish, as the Barbarian killed it right after it grappled me.


Nefreet wrote:

Wouldn't it make more sense to say that neither can swing a greatsword, but that dagger/dagger is fine, no matter how many hands you have?

Each of these above circumstances, if interpreting the rules as you do, have problems. None of them do if you go with the only interpretation I've ever known.

Which is easier to go by?

No, why would that make sense? I've got you by the arm; you can't use both arms to swing a greatsword, but you can somehow use the arm I'm grabbing to attack with a dagger? That's absurd. The fighter example is leveraging the hand-less wielding of armor spikes; it isn't an "inconsistency". The multi-limbed creatures must adapt the rules which are written from the presumption of humanoid creatures. So for a 4-armed creature, you alter the grapple rules to "you cannot use any action that requires all four hands" and for an octopus, you alter it to "you cannot use any action that requires all 8 tentacles". But for a normal, two-armed creature, they can't use both arms while being grappled. It's not exactly rocket science.

Shadow Lodge

The logic behind being able to make an attack with a light weapon using one hand while being grappled is that you have one hand holding the opponent away (in a grapple) and the other hand holding the weapon.

When you're using TWF, you're required to have both hands holding a weapon.

Grand Lodge

I feel like Pathfinder tried to move in the direction of "Grapple immobilizes one arm, pin immobilizes body" but didn't ever enunciate it.

d20pfsrd has a post by Jason Bulman clarifying grapple: (the link to it seem to be broken, so here is a link to their archived copy.)

1 to 50 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.