A Giant frog has grabbed a tiny flying creature and pulled it adjacent with its tongue. The tiny creature is grappled now. Tiny creatures do not have 5' reach and can't attack adjacent squares however there is a sticky tongue that has it all wrapped up and grappled in its current square.
Can it make an attack to bite the tongue?
blergh! ignore me - not paying attention!
RAW: No it can't.
I understand I guess but it seems unreasonable that the creature is holding another creature with it's body in the other square and yet the creature being held cannot attack what's restraining it.
I understand I guess but it seems unreasonable that the creature is holding another creature with it's body in the other square and yet the creature being held cannot attack what's restraining it.
And this is the heart of why I hate the Strike Back feat. It's something anybody should be able to do already.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
The rules do say, any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you. I could see reading this to mean; you can attack any creature in your reach OR the creature that is grappling you, even if it is outside your normal reach.
I think that makes decent sense, and isn't too convoluted of an interpretation.
Actually, it's quite convoluted. It says "within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you." In order to do what you want, it would need to say "within reach, or the creature that is grappling you." The "including" part of the sentence is just a clarifying statement, it doesn't expand who you can attack.
It is a clarifying statement, that the creature grappling you is always included "in your reach".