| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both under normal and unchained rules, grappling puts the attacker in a bad spot. Let's have two bears. The one who starts the grapple can do a standard action abd a grapple check (at +5) to hit once with a natural attack. Meanwhile, the grappled bear can do a full attack with 2 claws and a bite.
Doesn't it feel strange?
I know there are other adventages (such as vs casters), but it sounds strange that the creature with the upper hand in the grapple is actually at disadventage
With rake or constrict your damage options change greatly. Additionally, if you have superior grapple abilities but cannot keep up with your opponent's damage, you can choose to pin them so that you can attack with impunity.
Grappling is actually too good. Improved grapple vs someone without it means when they try to break there grapple they provoke. My friend had a tetori monk grippli and he wrecked the battlefield. Grappling a rouge, not so good. Grappling the guy who too only two handed weapon feats, best idea.
The problem is you grapple them, them they destroy you in full round, and them the remains of you pin him, if possible. And several creatures with grab don't have cobstrict or rake, such as bear or Trex
Yes, I agree that with tetori, constrict belts, and s lot of extra optiobs it's good. But base grapple is weak, abd most bears (for example) aren't tetori and don't wear Magic belts
A bear choosing to grapple a bear (and not pin) might be a bad choice. But (I'll be honest I'm making wild assumptions), I bet bears end up killing creatures smaller than themselves the vast majority of their lives. In this case grapple is excellent, as it prevents them from running away.
Same with T-rex + swallow whole.
As a player if you move to engage someone, you are most likely limited to one attack. You are going to get full attacked in the face next turn regardless of your choice. Being a grapple expert, ideally, limits that to one one full attack, whereas another character might receive many.
Regardless... Grapple, when invested in, has shown to be extremely powerful, especially against certain targets. But it's not always 100% the right choice. Neither is trip, disarm, or even attacking. Battle is dynamic and the demands change. That's a good thing.
|
The problem is you grapple them, them they destroy you in full round,
Not necessarily. If you are grappling them, they have one limb restricted. This can prevent them from using a claw attack, or any two handed weapon for humanoid creatures. It can also seriously ruin a Sword and Board character's day.
That said, grappling some things can be a really bad idea. Wrestling a Bear is usually not a winning situation.
It's wrong just like the rouge tumbling around the tarasque at the start of combat to provide flanking is wrong. "Hey guys, I made it! Guys? Why are you running away?"
Yeah, I suppose he would be embarrassed. Red-faced, no doubt.
Right before I CHOMP!!! him.
And please, show some respect. It's "tarrasque". Note the double "r". I'd CHOMP!!! you too but I just ate a red-faced rogue. Besides, bards are notorious for having no meat on their bones, and barians are notorious for poor hygiene, so I'll pass this time.
You just need to be a white-haired witch. Grapple them with your hair. They are grappled, you are not. Proceed to touch attack them with nasty spells or shoot them in the face.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grappling is actually too good. Improved grapple vs someone without it means when they try to break there grapple they provoke.
I don't believe this is true. Attempting to break out of a grapple is not the same thing as attempting to initiate one, and does not provoke.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Inferior choices are sometimes a blessing for a GM, especially when the party gets overwhelmed. Let a bear grapple the supporter bard - it adds tension and diversity, but also improves PCs' chances. Or let it grapple the rogue, so she can show off with her maxed Escape Artist.
The problem is you grapple them, them they destroy you in full round,Not necessarily. If you are grappling them, they have one limb restricted. This can prevent them from using a claw attack, or any two handed weapon for humanoid creatures. It can also seriously ruin a Sword and Board character's day.
That said, grappling some things can be a really bad idea. Wrestling a Bear is usually not a winning situation.
By rules, they attack you with all their claws. It vseriously destroy 2h builds, and casters. But I'm not talking just against PC. Against another creature, having it grappled should be an adventage. A grappled lion should do less damage than a free one. That's why we see Heracles and Tarzan grapple them
To the OP, as others have said, using your whole round to grapple something that is just going to full-attack you next round might be a bad idea.
There are better times for grappling. Like grappling a caster to make it hard for him to cast spells. Or grappling a guy with a 2H weapon so he cannot swing it at all. Or strategically grappling a foe specifically to keep him from running away (or running to a better tactical advantage).
And, as others have said, the base grapple is very easy to enhance into an awesome combat option that wrecks entire encounters, just with a couple feats or items. If the base grapple were made even more effective than it already is, then those super-grapplers would be way more awesome than they already are.
Even for the two bears, assuming Yogi-bear is not adjacent to Boo-Boo-bear, he probably must use a move action to get into melee range which means he doesn't get to full-attack; he can only make one attack. Then Boo-Boo-bear will full-attack next round (three attacks). Alternatively, Yogi-bear can close with Boo-Boo-bear and hit him with a claw AND grab him, initiating the grapple as part of his melee attack. If that succeeds, then Yogi-bear did some damage to Boo-Boo-bear AND grappled him. Next turn, Boo-Boo-bear can full attack but he only gets ONE claw, not two, and one bite. So, in effect, Yogi-bear used a free Grab (no action) to prevent Boo-Boo-bear from making one attack next round.
That seems worth it to me. Even more worth it if Boo-Boo-bear uses his round to escape the grapple instead of fighting, in which case, Yogi-bear's free Grab managed to prevent all THREE of Boo-Boo-bear's attacks.
Even if they start out adjacent, since the GRAB is free (no action required), Yogi-bear can make a full-attack of three attacks, plus use his Grab to possibly prevent Boo-Boo-bear from using one attack, so it might be possible for Yogi-bear to fight the entire combat, any number of rounds, fighting three attacks against only two of Boo-Boo-bear's attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A grappled lion should do less damage than a free one.
It does.
Read my post above, I show how Yogi-bear gets more attacks than Boo-Boo-bear when Yogi-bear is the one grappling.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A grappled lion should do less damage than a free one.It does.
Read my post above, I show how Yogi-bear gets more attacks than Boo-Boo-bear when Yogi-bear is the one grappling.
Your example works for a bear, but a lion does more damage when it is grappled, because it gains two rake attacks when it is grappled, offsetting the loss of one claw.
But as any cat owner will tell you, grappling a feline is a bad idea.
There is an advantage, if the grappled creature makes attacks instead of breaking free it gets a penalty on your next grapple check where you pin it and then eat it.
Wweeellllllll...
Not quite.
You're right, that makes it easier to pin. But maintaining the pin, for most creatures (including the bears in the OP's question) requires a standard action. Eating a live opponent also requires a standard action. Since the bear doesn't have two standard actions, he cannot really pin his prey and eat it - by Pathfinder rules.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A grappled lion should do less damage than a free one.It does.
Read my post above, I show how Yogi-bear gets more attacks than Boo-Boo-bear when Yogi-bear is the one grappling.
Your example works for a bear, but a lion does more damage when it is grappled, because it gains two rake attacks when it is grappled, offsetting the loss of one claw.
But as any cat owner will tell you, grappling a feline is a bad idea.
Tonight's homework assignment. Grapple a cat.
Your example works for a bear, but a lion does more damage when it is grappled, because it gains two rake attacks when it is grappled, offsetting the loss of one claw.
But as any cat owner will tell you, grappling a feline is a bad idea.
No, in the case of using a Rake ability while grappled, the lion (or any other creature with Rake) does not get to use its rake unless it is the "grappler". This means it must be the one who maintains a grapple, not the one who is being grappled.
First, there's this:
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).
This clearly shows that you are the "grappler" only when YOU are the one who can release the grapple, meaning you are the one who started it or reversed it - whoever is being grappled cannot choose to release the grapple and that combatant is NOT the "grappler".
And then there's this:
In addition to the options available to all grapplers, a monster with the rake ability gains two free claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe.
Note the bolded part. Those "options available to all grapplers" are only available when the "grappler" successfully maintains the grapple. So if you are a "grappler" and you successfully maintain a grapple, you can choose to do damage, pin, or move your opponent as per the Grapple rules. If you also have the Rake ability, you can add doing your Rake damage to that list of options.
So if a bear grapples a lion, the bear is the "grappler", not the lion, so the lion cannot use Rake. If the lion grapples the bear and then maintains that grapple, then it can use Rake. Or if the bear grapples first but the lion manages to "revers" the grapple to become the "grappler" AND maintains it next round, then the lion can use Rake.
A grappled lion should do less damage than a free one.It does.
Read my post above, I show how Yogi-bear gets more attacks than Boo-Boo-bear when Yogi-bear is the one grappling.
But Boo Boo can make 2 claws and 1 bite, because msking a claw attack doesn't need two hands. So he checks for the first claw: is it a 2h action? No? So it is a valid action. Check for claw 2. Is it a valid action? Yes, it is.
Also: yes, grappling a tiger might not be the best idea. It is still a better idea than facing a free one. That's why Tarzan, Heracles, Sansón and many other myth Warriors grapple them to grab their jaws.
Even more important: grappling a tiger is not a good idea "for a human", but it should work " fir another tiger" a grappked tiger is dangerous. A grappling tiger should be more.
An aditional problem is: if you have grab and 3 attacjs, and you hit with the first one, if you try grab and succeed, you are grappling And thus, you miss the resto of your attacks, as the grappling creature cant attack
(I hate autocorrect when I write english in a spanish phone)
|
|
And then there's this:In addition to the options available to all grapplers, a monster with the rake ability gains two free claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe.Note the bolded part. Those "options available to all grapplers" are only available when the "grappler" successfully maintains the grapple. So if you are a "grappler" and you successfully maintain a grapple, you can choose to do damage, pin, or move your opponent as per the Grapple rules. If you also have the Rake ability, you can add doing your Rake damage to that list of options.
We are back to Grappling a Succubus here. Rake is not a grapple option, it's two free claw attacks that it can use against a grappled foe.
All grapplers have the option to ignore making a grapple check and full-attack instead. If a lion makes a full-attack, it has the option to make a rake if the foe is grappled. A foe grappling a lion is also grappled, and a valid target of the rake.
Grappling also lowers their dex and their Attack rolls. Making it easier for other to hit them, and harder for them to hit you. so if you have the grab ability it effectively gives you bonuses to your AC if you succeed. doing a standard grapple though still might be worth it for the better effective AC.
|
|
Grappling also lowers their dex and their Attack rolls. Making it easier for other to hit them, and harder for them to hit you. so if you have the grab ability it effectively gives you bonuses to your AC if you succeed. doing a standard grapple though still might be worth it for the better effective AC.
It lowers your dex and attack rolls by the same amount, so that's a wash.
Lol at "your head is wrong".
My head says that when two bears grapple, the One with an upper hand, should have an upper hand. Weird, I know.
I also loled at the idea that Tsrzan grappling a lion isn't really grappling, or that he needs an specific feat to grab lion jaws. Plus another one for gorilla arm I suppose. And so on.
Also, about bears not grappling other bears:
bears
But Boo Boo can make 2 claws and 1 bite, because making a claw attack doesn't need two hands. So he checks for the first claw: is it a 2h action? No? So it is a valid action. Check for claw 2. Is it a valid action? Yes, it is.
Making an attack isn't an Action, it's an attack. The action he's trying to perform is the Full-Attack Action, an action which in this case would require the use of both his arms.
I'm pretty sure that's how it's supposed to work. It doesn't look like there's anything official. FAQ thread.
Matthew: if that is true, then grab would have some sense, at least against creatures that have something we could call "hands", being generous. It still wouldn't work against an hydra, or octopus, or even a horse, but it's something
|
With rake or constrict your damage options change greatly. Additionally, if you have superior grapple abilities but cannot keep up with your opponent's damage, you can choose to pin them so that you can attack with impunity.
You can attack while pinned. It specifically calls out not being able to move, or cast spells, but full attacks aren't mentioned at all.
Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But Boo Boo can make 2 claws and 1 bite, because msking a claw attack doesn't need two hands. So he checks for the first claw: is it a 2h action? No? So it is a valid action. Check for claw 2. Is it a valid action? Yes, it is.
Not true.
you can take any action that doesn’t require two hands to perform,
Note the keyword: Action.
A fighter with a BAB of 11 can take a full-round action to make 3 iterative attacks with his longsword. That full-round action only requires one hand.
But a bear does not have iterative attacks. The bear's full-round attack is "claw/claw/bite" and he gets NO option to make the two claw attacks with just one claw. His attack entry says "2 claws". If he wishes to take that full-round action to use both claws and his bite, he will be unable to do it because that requires "two hands" (claws) to work. Therefore, he can only take a full-round action with a single claw and a bite, so he loses the one attack.
A bear doesn't have hands either. Not doesn't an hydra, or an octopus or a horse. A lion grappling a horse will be hit by 2 hoofs and a bite, as none of those are hands. Neither are the bear claws, btw They don't get the -4 to grapple for not having a free hand either
Basic grappling is OK at the level which people should be trying it: almost never. Seriously, the number of times a character should attempt to grapple when it doesn't have at least one complementary ability are vanishingly small.
again, you are thinking about PC only. I'm not. What about a bear? What about a bear who grapple a fighter, and them become destroyed by the unhibdered full round action with the fighter bastard sword?
At the very least, grappling should only be tried if the creature attempting it has Improved Grapple or Grab.
i agree. Like a bear.
To use the lion example, who in their right mind would go and grab a big, angry cat in the first place? Very poor target selection for that technique.
a bear would. Or another lion. And the One with an upper hand should have... an upper hand
a bear would. Or another lion. And the One with an upper hand should have... an upper hand
Didn't you just get done saying a bear doesn't have hands?
;)
In any case, "hand" and "claw" are interchangeable in this rule. As they should be.
|
|
A melee/martial combatant grappling a melee/martial combatant gets progressively worse as BAB increases, it is both harder, and you are subject to more attacks. Using the same tactic on support/spell caster classes is a significantly different story. Two rounds of successful grappling leaves a foe pinned, and pinned foes are helpless. If you have an ally near by, the ally can attempt a coup de grâce. Especially against a foe who isn't martial based the fort save is going to be difficult.
To me 2 rounds to eliminate a foe in exchange for one round of full attack doesn't feel like a bad exchange.
Grappling is often a horrible option in combat. It hurts the grappler more than it does the grappled creature. That really freaking stupid.
Oddly enough, a creture with the Grab ability is better off releasing its grapple every time and then trying to regrapple with its next attack, only bothering to sustain the grapple at the end of its turn.
You need 3~4 feats just to be able to sustain your grapple as a swift action... And then grapple becomes really powerful!
Otherwise, you're better off grappling/releasing all the time so that you can full attack... Bouncing your would-be grapplee like a basketball... -.-'
a bear would. Or another lion. And the One with an upper hand should have... an upper handDidn't you just get done saying a bear doesn't have hands?
;)
In any case, "hand" and "claw" are interchangeable in this rule. As they should be.
I would love that to be true. In fact, this thread is basically because I'm thinking to make some homerules and this could be a start.
Sadly, for PFS, I don't think hands are claws. And even if they were, you just remove bears from the equation, but you still have other monsters, which have hoofs, or horns, or tentacles, or whatever.
Also, about bears not grappling other bears:
bears
Until Paizo publishes Mass Combat rules including hordes of bears grappling each other, I quit.
FYI, Rake rules are rather... AMBIGUOUS.
Here is link to the topic (Mark Seifter gives his take a few posts down, basically houseruling as RAW is borked)
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r7kg&page=64?Ask-Mark-Seifter-All-Your-Que stions-Here#3158
Otherwise, you're better off grappling/releasing all the time so that you can full attack... Bouncing your would-be grapplee like a basketball... -.-'
This is true, and sad.
The best thing a Bear can do with a grappled deer or whatever, is to release him, full attack him, and grab him again.
This is stupid. A bear who fights another bear, would try to grapple him. A Bear who fights a tiger, will try to grapple him as well. In fact, dogs that attack a bear, would try to grapple him too (with the maws). Because grappling someone, and having the upper hand, is an adventage. If you are strong enough to resist the attempts to get free, you should, by all means, grapple a tiger. As bears do, as Conan do, as Tarzan do, as Samson do, as Heracles do. Because yes, being grappled by a tiger isn't funny, so if the tiger is stronger, and can become "the grappler" with ease, it's by all means a suicide ide. But grappling him is, actually, better than letting him to claw and bite you to death. A tyrannosaurus that is holding a sabertooth tiger in his jaw, is, and should be, in a much better spot than a tyrannosaurus that is facing a free sabertooth tiger. By far. But in the game, it's not. Actually, the tiger has now rake.
Grappling is actually too good. Improved grapple vs someone without it means when they try to break there grapple they provoke. My friend had a tetori monk grippli and he wrecked the battlefield. Grappling a rouge, not so good. Grappling the guy who too only two handed weapon feats, best idea.
You're actually thinking of Counter-Grapple, which is a 4th-level Tetori Monk class ability. Improved Grapple (the feat) just lets you grapple without provoking (and get a +2 on the roll).
It's also not clear whether "breaking a grapple" would count as "attempting to grapple" the monk. Most GMs I know would say "no": "attempting to grapple" is initiating a grapple, not attempting to break out of one.
Like every other tactic, grappling is sometimes devastating to the target and sometimes terrible for the grappler. How often it falls on the "super effective" side depends on the situations you usually run into.
Grappling a caster? Always super-effective.
Grappling a flying creature? Usually pretty effective.
Grappling a large creature with reach? Darned effective if you want to hold him down to let your party members get into position.
Grappling a creature with 5 natural attacks? Not usually so good, but you can mitigate this by fighting defensively, using combat expertise, using Crane Style, etc. (You get +3-4 AC while imposing a -2 attack penalty to the target.)
My tetori describes her role as "I hold things down so you guys can beat on them." In the context, it's almost always super-effective.
Otherwise, you're better off grappling/releasing all the time so that you can full attack... Bouncing your would-be grapplee like a basketball... -.-'This is true, and sad.
The best thing a Bear can do with a grappled deer or whatever, is to release him, full attack him, and grab him again.
This is stupid.
Now I agree.
This has been the stupid-but-best way to grapple since before Pathfinder existed. Make your attacks, use your Grab ability for a free grapple, let your opponent have his turn hindered by you grappling him, then right before your next turn release the grapple and do the full attack plus Grab thing again.
Agreed. Stupid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I houserule that any creature with the Grab ability can sustain the Grapple as a non-action, but they can't use the limb used to hold the grapple for anything else and must still succeed on their grapple checks.
Now the bear and tiger can hold their grapple and actually benefit from it. You know... Like they actually do in real life.
This has been the stupid-but-best way to grapple since before Pathfinder existed. Make your attacks, use your Grab ability for a free grapple, let your opponent have his turn hindered by you grappling him, then right before your next turn release the grapple and do the full attack plus Grab thing again.
Depends on your goal. If killing them (or lowering their HPs to aid others to kill them) is your goal at all costs, then using Grab as "bonus debuff" via Drop/FullAttack/ReGrab is a good tactic. But you are forgoing a +5 bonus for maintaining, and they are also able to Full Attack you back (unlike being Pinned), so it is potentially a riskier strategy. If you are planning on one Full Attack being able to kill them (possibly combined with allies attacks), then the Grapple is superfluous anyways.
Nothing about Grapple rules indicates that fastest-possible-killing is it's primary priority, so not measuring up in that department is hardly surprising. That the nuances of Drop/ReGrab tactic is not spelled is hardly surprising, because the rules don't spell out MANY tactics. If it did, many posters who enjoy the status/challenge of being rules experts would have that status/challenge taken away from them.
This has been the stupid-but-best way to grapple since before Pathfinder existed. Make your attacks, use your Grab ability for a free grapple, let your opponent have his turn hindered by you grappling him, then right before your next turn release the grapple and do the full attack plus Grab thing again.Depends on your goal. Maintaining to Pin basically paralyzes them and increases the DC to escape (or casting concentration), which is not accomplished by Drop/FullAttack/ReGrab. If killing them is your goal, then using Grab as "bonus debuff" via Drop/FullAttack/ReGrab is probably better. Nothing about Grapple rules indicates that fastest-possible-killing is it's primary priority, so not measuring up in that department is hardly surprising. That the nuances of Drop/ReGrab tactic is not spelled is hardly surprising, because the rules don't spell out MANY tactics.
For a bear, I would suppose that killing the prey is the priority.
Sure, base grappling is bad, because if it was good then there would be no point to taking the feats. However, with the feats...