Can you continue your full attack action after successfully initiating a grab attempt?


Rules Questions


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I suspect this will be a simple question with a deceptively difficult answer.

Can you continue your full attack action after successfully initiating a grab attempt?

Most people understand that when you are the grappler, you can't normally take the full attack action AND maintain the grapple. However, the grab ability lets you initiate a grab as a free action and does not explicitly prohibit you from continuing on with your full attack action. In fact, I can't seem to find a rule that does so.

Is there anything in the rules preventing this?


While grappled you can't take any action that requires 2 hands. No natural attack requires 2 hands. Thus you can continue your full attack. Now, on your turn you'd either need to maintain as a standard before anything OR release thus stopping a full attack while maintaining a grapple.


I'm not aware of any rule that says once you grab something that your full attack ends.

There is even this part from the rules

SRD wrote:


... 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...

Now granted, that part of the rules is for if something has grappled you, and you don't want to counter grapple. But it seems that once the grapple has occurred successfully, any remaining actions you have on your turn are valid. If that grapple came because of the grab ability, continue to attack. If you had to use a action to maintain the grapple at the start of a turn though, then you are limited in your remaining actions.


Agreed, free action with no other limitations until next turn when you have to decide whether to maintain or not.

Except in the unlikely (but not impossible) situation where you have iterative attacks with the limb grabbing - you'll lose those I think.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Well, I guess I don't have a rule, but I've always played and GM that your full attack ends. You have the option to drop the grab and continue the full attack.


Nothing says your full-attack ends, and why should it?


Chess Pwn wrote:
While grappled you can't take any action that requires 2 hands. No natural attack requires 2 hands. Thus you can continue your full attack. Now, on your turn you'd either need to maintain as a standard before anything OR release thus stopping a full attack while maintaining a grapple.

While no individual natural attack requires two hands, attacking with multiple natural weapons falls under the category of "actions occupying your other hand" per the slashing grace FAQ (which is actually the "what occupies your off-hand" FAQ). This would indicate that once you gain the grappled condition a multi-natural weapon full-attack would be interrupted. Paizo has very clearly moved towards anything beyond attacking with a single weapon's worth of action economy being considered "two hands worth of actions" and I expect this would fall under the same category.


The Slashing Grace FAQ is specifically about slashing grace. It makes no mention of general rules, etc. It therefore has no bearing in this particular discussion except has a reference for where the PDT may be leaning regarding the use of multiple hands/what constitutes use of multiple hands. But IMO, it is a weak reference at best, and certainly goes against what seems to be pretty clearly allowed in creatures like tigers with pounce/rake combos that have grab attacks as well. The lack of mention on a tiger (or like creature) wanting to avoid using its free grab during a pounce/rake is a large oversight if doing so would shut down its attack routine.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
Well, I guess I don't have a rule, but I've always played and GM that your full attack ends. You have the option to drop the grab and continue the full attack.

This is the way I've done it as well, but after recently reviewing the rules, it occurred to me that I may have been doing it wrong all along.

We're not the only ones. There's whole discussion threads on this forum where that seems to be the default assumption.


Nothing says that your turn ends when you grapple someone.

People are misapplying the rules if they believe that it does. They are applying something that happens on your next turn (maintain check) to the turn that initiates the grapple.

Heck, even when maintaining a grapple you can make a Full Attack IF you have a means to maintain the grapple with a bonus action (such as Hero Points).

Hero Point gain a Standard Action to maintain, then Full-Attack.


bbangerter wrote:

The Slashing Grace FAQ is specifically about slashing grace. It makes no mention of general rules, etc. It therefore has no bearing in this particular discussion except has a reference for where the PDT may be leaning regarding the use of multiple hands/what constitutes use of multiple hands. But IMO, it is a weak reference at best, and certainly goes against what seems to be pretty clearly allowed in creatures like tigers with pounce/rake combos that have grab attacks as well. The lack of mention on a tiger (or like creature) wanting to avoid using its free grab during a pounce/rake is a large oversight if doing so would shut down its attack routine.

The question for the FAQ is what things occupy your offhand action economy and thus trigger that restriction for slashing grace. This is completely relevant to the question at hand and any other time questions about offhand/two hand actions come up. The limit on FAQs is what the answer is and is not necessarily limited by the scope of the originating FAQ question. (For example the Gang Up FAQ applies to flanking in general and not just the feat.)

And it has next to no impact on creatures with one grab as that attack can don't be resolved last. So tigers and such are irrelevant. And simply by looking at expected damage outputs the one grab limit is most likely intended.


anyone who is TWF is only using 1 hand to make attacks with at a time. So full attacking while grappled with TWF is okay, because none of the attacks take 2 hands.


Grab ≠ Grapple.

You can perfectly continue a full attack with natural weapons after you perform a Grab. Grab means the creature attacks a target with a natural attack, and if she succeeds on the attack and a free grapple check, the part of her body she used "latches" into the opponent. Creature still has all other natural attacks available, subject to GM's choice (if a giant creature grabs a small one with a bite she might find difficult to use her leg talons, but still might be able to attack with arm claws).

The first "maintain grab/grapple" choice the creature has to make is on her next turn, not the current one. Unless the creature chose to switch to a full grapple, most probably will prefer to release and perform another full attack to regrab her target.


Yorien wrote:

Grab ≠ Grapple.

You can perfectly continue a full attack with natural weapons after you perform a Grab. Grab means the creature attacks a target with a natural attack, and if she succeeds on the attack and a free grapple check, the part of her body she used "latches" into the opponent. Creature still has all other natural attacks available, subject to GM's choice (if a giant creature grabs a small one with a bite she might find difficult to use her leg talons, but still might be able to attack with arm claws).

The first "maintain grab/grapple" choice the creature has to make is on her next turn, not the current one. Unless the creature chose to switch to a full grapple, most probably will prefer to release and perform another full attack to regrab her target.

You still get the grappled condition unless you take the -20.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yeah, but I don't see anything in the grappled condition that prevents the taking of remaining attacks. At worst, they will take a small penalty to hit.

Chess Pwn wrote:
anyone who is TWF is only using 1 hand to make attacks with at a time. So full attacking while grappled with TWF is okay, because none of the attacks take 2 hands.

I'm certain there are a lot of people on these boards who would disagree with that notion.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

I disagree with that notion!


people are allowed to have wrong opinions, and there's nothing I can do about it.

When I attack with a dagger I'm using 1 hand.
When I attack with a dagger I'm using 1 hand.
When I attack with a dagger I'm using 1 hand.
When I attack with a dagger I'm using 1 hand.
When I attack with a dagger I'm using 1 hand.

When did I ever do something that required two hands? Never.

When I attack with a claw I'm using 1 claw.
When I attack with a claw I'm using 1 claw.
When I attack with a bite I'm using 1 bite.

When did I ever do something that required two hands? Never.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I removed one of your arms, could you still take the action?

If not, then it requires 2 hands to perform.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Can a one-armed man take advantage of the Two-weapon Fighting feats if he dropped one weapon after making his primary attacks then used Quick Draw to pull out another weapon and attacked with his secondary attacks?


Ravingdork wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Well, I guess I don't have a rule, but I've always played and GM that your full attack ends. You have the option to drop the grab and continue the full attack.

This is the way I've done it as well, but after recently reviewing the rules, it occurred to me that I may have been doing it wrong all along.

We're not the only ones. There's whole discussion threads on this forum where that seems to be the default assumption.

Wasn't there a thread about whether Grab and Release was SOP for creatures with multiple tentacles and constrict? If I remember correctly, the general consensus was yes, it's allowed. For some reason I feel like there was developer commentary in there somewhere, but I could be wrong.


Ravingdork wrote:
Yeah, but I don't see anything in the grappled condition that prevents the taking of remaining attacks. At worst, they will take a small penalty to hit

The penalty to hit is offset by the penalty to dex grappled creatures take.


Chess Pwn wrote:

people are allowed to have wrong opinions, and there's nothing I can do about it.

When I attack with a dagger I'm using 1 hand.
When I attack with a dagger I'm using 1 hand.
When I attack with a dagger I'm using 1 hand.
When I attack with a dagger I'm using 1 hand.
When I attack with a dagger I'm using 1 hand.

When did I ever do something that required two hands? Never.

When I attack with a claw I'm using 1 claw.
When I attack with a claw I'm using 1 claw.
When I attack with a bite I'm using 1 bite.

When did I ever do something that required two hands? Never.

The action itself requires two hands worth of action economy. Everything coming from the design team recently is on the side that if something prohibits you from using your second hand, it also prohibits any type of action that uses more than your primary hand action economy.


Tarantula wrote:

If I removed one of your arms, could you still take the action?

If not, then it requires 2 hands to perform.

yes.

When I attack with an IUS I'm using 1 "hand" and any body part.
When I attack with an IUS I'm using 1 "hand" and any body part.
When I attack with an IUS I'm using 1 "hand" and any body part.
When I attack with an IUS I'm using 1 "hand" and any body part.
When I attack with an IUS I'm using 1 "hand" and any body part.

Thus not having 1 physical arm doesn't stop TWF. So TWF doesn't require two hands, though I am using two "hands".

If I have two attacks I can use weapons in either hand for each attack.
So longsword uses 1 hand, mace using 1 hand. I'm not using TWF, but each attack still only needs one hand and I'm only using one "hand".

Grappling doesn't prevent me from using one of my hands, just from doing anything needing two hands. So I still have both physical hands free to do stuff with. Since TWF is not something that requires two actual hands to do, it's not something that requires two hands to do and is thus allowed.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Tarantula wrote:

If I removed one of your arms, could you still take the action?

If not, then it requires 2 hands to perform.

yes.

When I attack with an IUS I'm using 1 "hand" and any body part.
When I attack with an IUS I'm using 1 "hand" and any body part.
When I attack with an IUS I'm using 1 "hand" and any body part.
When I attack with an IUS I'm using 1 "hand" and any body part.
When I attack with an IUS I'm using 1 "hand" and any body part.

Thus not having 1 physical arm doesn't stop TWF. So TWF doesn't require two hands, though I am using two "hands".

If I have two attacks I can use weapons in either hand for each attack.
So longsword uses 1 hand, mace using 1 hand. I'm not using TWF, but each attack still only needs one hand and I'm only using one "hand".

Grappling doesn't prevent me from using one of my hands, just from doing anything needing two hands. So I still have both physical hands free to do stuff with. Since TWF is not something that requires two actual hands to do, it's not something that requires two hands to do and is thus allowed.

The rules at the very least suggest that the grappled condition occupies a hand from an action economy standpoint, which would prevent TWF.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Tarantula wrote:

If I removed one of your arms, could you still take the action?

If not, then it requires 2 hands to perform.

yes.

When I attack with an IUS I'm using 1 "hand" and any body part.
When I attack with an IUS I'm using 1 "hand" and any body part.
When I attack with an IUS I'm using 1 "hand" and any body part.
When I attack with an IUS I'm using 1 "hand" and any body part.
When I attack with an IUS I'm using 1 "hand" and any body part.

Thus not having 1 physical arm doesn't stop TWF. So TWF doesn't require two hands, though I am using two "hands".

If I have two attacks I can use weapons in either hand for each attack.
So longsword uses 1 hand, mace using 1 hand. I'm not using TWF, but each attack still only needs one hand and I'm only using one "hand".

Grappling doesn't prevent me from using one of my hands, just from doing anything needing two hands. So I still have both physical hands free to do stuff with. Since TWF is not something that requires two actual hands to do, it's not something that requires two hands to do and is thus allowed.

Then yes, you can TWF with a weapon and unarmed strikes while grappled.

You can't TWF with a longsword in one hand, and a shortsword in the other, because that does use both hands.


NOTHING in grappling says I can't use both hands. Just that I can't do something that requires two hands to perform.

Using a longsword only uses 1 hand. using a dagger only uses 1 hand. TWF as just shown DOESN'T require two hands to perform. Thus I'm never doing anything that requires two hands to perform, even though I end up using both hands in the turn.

Something that requires two hands is attacking with a greatsword.


Chess Pwn wrote:

NOTHING in grappling says I can't use both hands. Just that I can't do something that requires two hands to perform.

Using a longsword only uses 1 hand. using a dagger only uses 1 hand. TWF as just shown DOESN'T require two hands to perform. Thus I'm never doing anything that requires two hands to perform, even though I end up using both hands in the turn.

Something that requires two hands is attacking with a greatsword.

TWF with an unarmed strike doesn't require two hands. TWF with 2 weapons does.


Calth wrote:


The question for the FAQ is what things occupy your offhand action economy and thus trigger that restriction for slashing grace. This is completely relevant to the question at hand and any other time questions about offhand/two hand actions come up. The limit on FAQs is what the answer is and is not necessarily limited by the scope of the originating FAQ question. (For example the Gang Up FAQ applies to flanking in general and not just the feat.)

And it has next to no impact on creatures with one grab as that attack can don't be resolved last. So tigers and such are irrelevant. And simply by looking at expected damage outputs the one grab limit is most likely intended.

1) The OP didn't ask if you could continue a full TWF attack, he asked only if you could continue to make your attacks from a full attack. The FAQ on slashing grace has zero bearing on that general question.

2) Unlike the gang up feat, the feat on metamagic that says "In general..." and several other feats that answer more broad questions about the rules, this FAQ is specifically about "What are the limitation on Slashing Grace". It was clarifying what the feat itself already tells us.

"You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied."

The feat offers a specific advantage with a chosen weapon, but adds some restrictions in order to gain that advantage. There is no general language either explicitly or implied about how the rules work like there is for the gang up feat that would allow us to extend the answer of this FAQ to the grappled condition.
3) If are specifically talking about continuing a TWF full attack when the grappled condition occurs, then yes I agree with you that you lose any remaining off-hand (or main hand) attacks. How this interacts with non-bipal creatures using natural attacks is not explained in the rules. Personally I'd 'restrict' one of the limbs of the creature - the one that has already made an attack and initiated the grapple. The creatures remaining natural attacks would all still be open to making those attacks.


Chess Pwn wrote:

NOTHING in grappling says I can't use both hands. Just that I can't do something that requires two hands to perform.

Using a longsword only uses 1 hand. using a dagger only uses 1 hand. TWF as just shown DOESN'T require two hands to perform. Thus I'm never doing anything that requires two hands to perform, even though I end up using both hands in the turn.

Something that requires two hands is attacking with a greatsword.

This is basically the division in the two arguments. If you take "two hands" to mean physically simultaneously occupying two limbs, you are right. If you take "two hands" to mean utilize two or more limbs of action economy, you are wrong. I lean towards the second utilization as a) it seems more balanced with regards to game math and b)most of the recent rulings have come down that when the design team says two hands/second hand/other hand they include action economy considerations.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:

NOTHING in grappling says I can't use both hands. Just that I can't do something that requires two hands to perform.

That you think there is a meaningful distinction between those two statements is where we disagree.

In any event, to the original question, yes you and the monsters can continue full attacking after a successful grab attempt. A pouncing tiger/eidolon/whatever does not lose its claw attacks just because it grabbed the target with its bite.


Chess Pwn wrote:

NOTHING in grappling says I can't use both hands. Just that I can't do something that requires two hands to perform.

Using a longsword only uses 1 hand. using a dagger only uses 1 hand. TWF as just shown DOESN'T require two hands to perform. Thus I'm never doing anything that requires two hands to perform, even though I end up using both hands in the turn.

Something that requires two hands is attacking with a greatsword.

The open question is: Does the grapple rules reference to taking no action that requires two hands refer to the general usage of the term action, or the game defined term of action?

Using TWF with two weapons to make a full attack action (game defined term for action) requires two hands (barring boot blades and other edge cases). If that is the definition of action grapple means to use, then no, you cannot TWF while grappled. If not, then TWF is allowed. But the rules don't answer that question so it is currently left to GM interpretation.


bbangerter wrote:
Calth wrote:


The question for the FAQ is what things occupy your offhand action economy and thus trigger that restriction for slashing grace. This is completely relevant to the question at hand and any other time questions about offhand/two hand actions come up. The limit on FAQs is what the answer is and is not necessarily limited by the scope of the originating FAQ question. (For example the Gang Up FAQ applies to flanking in general and not just the feat.)

And it has next to no impact on creatures with one grab as that attack can don't be resolved last. So tigers and such are irrelevant. And simply by looking at expected damage outputs the one grab limit is most likely intended.

1) The OP didn't ask if you could continue a full TWF attack, he asked only if you could continue to make your attacks from a full attack. The FAQ on slashing grace has zero bearing on that general question.

2) Unlike the gang up feat, the feat on metamagic that says "In general..." and several other feats that answer more broad questions about the rules, this FAQ is specifically about "What are the limitation on Slashing Grace". It was clarifying what the feat itself already tells us.

"You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied."

The feat offers a specific advantage with a chosen weapon, but adds some restrictions in order to gain that advantage. There is no general language either explicitly or implied about how the rules work like there is for the gang up feat that would allow us to extend the answer of this FAQ to the grappled condition.
3) If are specifically talking about continuing a TWF full attack when the grappled condition occurs, then yes I agree with you that you lose any remaining off-hand (or main hand) attacks. How this interacts with non-bipal creatures using natural attacks is not explained in the rules. Personally I'd 'restrict' one of the limbs of the creature - the one that has already made...

You are missing the portion of the FAQ that is covering multiple natural weapon attacks. The FAQ states that those too count as occupying an additional hand which makes it relevant.


Calth wrote:
You are missing the portion of the FAQ that is covering multiple natural weapon attacks. The FAQ states that those too count as occupying an additional hand which makes it relevant.

No, I'm not. It states

"Attacking with natural weapons beyond the weapon you chose for Slashing Grace also does not work."

It does not say anything about "because that counts as an occupied hand". In fact if having natural weapons counted as an occupied hand then you could not use the feat while you had natural weapons. It simply states you cannot make additional natural attacks while using slashing grace.

There is a difference between stating "This does not work" (which is the explanation on using natural attacks with slashing grace) and "This does not work, because <like the gang up feat example>".

Slashing grace is simply an incompatible combat style with natural attacks. Just like THF and TWF cannot be done simultaneously. Or cleave and vital strike don't go together. Or spell combat and TWF, etc.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

NOTHING in grappling says I can't use both hands. Just that I can't do something that requires two hands to perform.

That you think there is a meaningful distinction between those two statements is where we disagree.

In any event, to the original question, yes you and the monsters can continue full attacking after a successful grab attempt. A pouncing tiger/eidolon/whatever does not lose its claw attacks just because it grabbed the target with its bite.

Attacking with a light or one handed weapon requires 1 hand. thus allowed.

attacking with a THW requires 2 hands. I can't make that attack while grappled.

TWF doesn't require 2 physical hands to do.
Thus nothing in attacking with two daggers requires two hands to perform.

Saying that TWF dagger, IUS combo works but dagger, dagger doesn't seems more like grasping at straw than a solid base to me.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:

TWF doesn't require 2 physical hands to do.

Thus nothing in attacking with two daggers requires two hands to perform.

You are welcome to think that.


bbangerter wrote:
Calth wrote:
You are missing the portion of the FAQ that is covering multiple natural weapon attacks. The FAQ states that those too count as occupying an additional hand which makes it relevant.

No, I'm not. It states

"Attacking with natural weapons beyond the weapon you chose for Slashing Grace also does not work."

It does not say anything about "because that counts as an occupied hand". In fact if having natural weapons counted as an occupied hand then you could not use the feat while you had natural weapons. It simply states you cannot make additional natural attacks while using slashing grace.

There is a difference between stating "This does not work" (which is the explanation on using natural attacks with slashing grace) and "This does not work, because <like the gang up feat example>".

Slashing grace is simply an incompatible combat style with natural attacks. Just like THF and TWF cannot be done simultaneously. Or cleave and vital strike don't go together. Or spell combat and TWF, etc.

The question itself does say "because". The question is not "what doesn't work with slashing grace?" the question for the FAQ is "what counts as occupying your other hand?." The slashing grace feat is just one place where that comes up, but the answer applies wherever there are concerns about hands being occupied. And attacking with multiple natural weapons count as occupying your other hand by the FAQ.


This sounds like a job for an FAQ!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If you don't allow one-handed people to stab with two weapons (in or out of a grapple), do you then not also allow a quick draw thrown weapon building use two-weapon fighting?

If you are being logical, it seems to me like if you allowed one, you kind of have to allow the other.


James Risner wrote:
Well, I guess I don't have a rule, but I've always played and GM that your full attack ends. You have the option to drop the grab and continue the full attack.

That was the way of 3.5, but this is one of those changes that makes PF its own system separate from 3.5.


Ravingdork wrote:

If you don't allow one-handed people to stab with two weapons (in or out of a grapple), do you then not also allow a quick draw thrown weapon building use two-weapon fighting?

If you are being logical, it seems to me like if you allowed one, you kind of have to allow the other.

I wouldn't allow the one-armed quickdraw TWF guy. I do allow twf quickdraw throwing. I would not allow one-armed quickdraw TWF throwing either.

Two-Weapon Fighting wrote:
Thrown Weapons: The same rules apply when you throw a weapon from each hand. Treat a dart or shuriken as a light weapon when used in this manner, and treat a bolas, javelin, net, or sling as a one-handed weapon.


Simple answer. No.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can you continue your full attack action after successfully initiating a grab attempt? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.