Naughty Smurf's page

*sigh* It is just game rules.

Yeah, I know. But you could say that about anything.

Why no increase? Because the spell doesn't mention increasing speed.

And the enlarge spell has pretty much never increased the speed of character.

I think there was a divine buff spell in PF1 that increased your size and speed, but it also gave other bonuses too.

The spell doesn't mention it, and that's my point. And this is 2E, so why not make it better? How easy would it be? Enlarge...speed increases by 5. Enlarge (4th)...speed increases by 10. I guess I'm asking too much of this edition.

A 4th level Enlarge cast on my Animate Dead Skeletal Champion will increase his size from Medium to Huge, Clumsy 1 (although RAW doesn't explicitly repeat this in the Heightened entry), +4 Melee damage, and reach increases by 10 feet. But no mention of speed??? The skeleton's legs have certainly gotten much longer and he still gets two Strikes per round, so he doesn't seem to be any slower...why no increase to the distance in a Stride? Thoughts?

I think that bbangerter, Claxon and Yaba have it right. And thanks to Diego Rossi for pointing out the update to the “If You Are Grappled” section.
The Update clarified it from letting the defender take an action that “requires only one hand” to an action that “doesn’t require two hands.” Also, DR points out that the devs meant to restrain some part of the target, not necessarily an arm with a “hand” on it.
And the answer is:

Tiger picks a fight with Girallon.
1) Tiger charges and makes a full attack with pounce, 2 claws (grab) + bite (grab). On the first claw, it hits and grabs. Both gain the grappled condition, but Tiger gets to complete its full attack action. Second claw hits, bite hits. It didn’t begin its turn grappled, but it pounced so it gets an additional 2 claw attacks from rake. (4 claws + bite)

Girallon is grappled, but makes a full attack, minus one claw to represent the restraint of the grapple. So, it gets 3 claws + bite. Its Rend requires 4 claws to hit, so no rend.

2) Tiger uses a standard action to maintain the grapple and succeeds. Tiger can now inflict damage equal to a natural attack, and because it began the turn grappled, gets an additional 2 claw attacks from rake. (Total 3 claws)
Girallon repeats its 3 claws + bite. "Ow, kitty! That's a bad kitty!"

3) Tiger releases the grapple as a free action and full attacks, 2 claws (grab) + bite (grab). All hit and re-establish the grapple. Because it started its turn grappled, and it is now grappled, it DOES get the 2 rake attacks! (4 claws + bite) PO’ed kitty!

Girallon is tired of getting scratched and spends a standard action to reverse the grapple. It succeeds, but no damage is dealt.

4) Tiger is now defending and can only make one claw + one bite attack. Rake requires 2 claws to perform, so no rake. (1 claw + bite)

Girallon because a standard action is required to maintain the grapple and it would only get damage from one claw, Girallon decides to release the grapple and full attack, 4 claws + rend + bite. It succeeds on all four claws and gets it’s rend damage.

5) Tiger withdraws
I’m happy with that. Defender is in a less desirable spot throughout. The qualifier should be: for natural attacks when defending in a grapple, you get a full attack action minus one attack, to a minimum of one primary attack.

Thanks for all the help! At least my player will know I put it up for debate and a lot of thought went into it!

This is the reason why the grappling creature would get all its natural attacks, even while grappling. Each individual strike is possible, so no individual strike is prevented. A grappling creature is not restrained; if it was, it would be pinned. Grappling as a condition also does not distinguish between the initiator of the grapple and the one initially targeted.

The condition doesn’t distinguish between attacker and target, but the combat rules certainly do. The Attacker has the option to release the grapple as a Free Action, gains a bonus to maintain the grapple, can move the target, damage the target automatically, pin the target, etc. The target, on their turn, can attempt to break the grapple and “become the grappler, grappling the other creature.”

On a letter-of-the-law note, a full attack action does not require two hands. As others have said, it is simply the action used when making more than one attack in a round. There is no distinction made regarding whether the combatant has multiple weapons. A full attack doesn't require two "hands", and each individual attack within it doesn't require two "hands". Therefore a full attack is allowed in a grapple, regardless of any other factors, and will typically include all the creature's natural attacks.

A full attack action does not necessarily require two hands. A fighter with +11/+6/+1 can make three attacks with the sword in their right hand as a full attack action. (One hand) That same fighter could also make an additional attack with the dagger in their left hand (TWF) as part of a full attack action. (Two hands)

But all of those attacks are gained from a high BAB. Natural attacks are not gained like that. They come from the number of appendages capable of making an attack—one attack for each. The 2 claws attack cannot both come from the same appendage. A full attack for a creature with the 2 claws attack does require two "hands", I think.

This is the reason PCs typically will not attempt to grapple creatures with lots of natural attacks. If a fighter with high CMB could limit any creature (like a hydra for example) to a single natural attack by grappling it, monsters with multiple natural attacks would cease to be a threat. Grappling is already an effective way to cripple spellcasters. It's not supposed to be a way to cripple monsters too.

I think I would rule a hydra differently. Its 5 bites don't invoke the "two hands" rule. (By the RAW, anyway)

Naughty Smurf wrote:

This is also for Society, so we go by the letter of the law. I’m saying a “full attack action” for the eidolon would be specifically 2 claws + 1 bite—all three things need to be there. The two claws part of that action requires two “hands,” so it technically violates the Rule As Written. That would mean that, technically, the whole thing does because some part of it requires two hands. Tossing that entire action out, the eidolon is left with a single attack action.

AFAIK you aren't actually required to take every possible attack available to you in a full-attack action. For instance, if you have both manufactured and natural weapons, you could choose to omit the former so as not to render all the latter secondary. So the eidolon could take a full-attack action in which it chooses to attack with just 1 claw + 1 bite.

Yes, but he's not "choosing" that. He's prohibited by rule from doing it.

And by the way, thanks for hashing this out with me, guys. It helps to have the input and in the end, I will probably lighten my ruling a little. ;)

WatersLethe wrote:

I think "requiring two hands" refers to two-handed weapons. He should get both claw attacks just as a rogue could get two dagger attacks.

It's supposed to represent being unable to hit someone with a giant two handed sword when they're hugging you, but being able to claw or shank them with a one handed weapon just fine.

there’s a lot of people that agree with you, but RAW it’s hard to say that a Full Attack Action to attack with a weapon in each hand does not involve an Action that requires two hands. Note that ‘action’ is a technical term, and in this context the ‘Action’ is the Full Attack Action.

That said, to the OP, if you interpret quadrupeds as having hands, then when tigers pounce and successfully grab on the first claw attack, making the second claw attack would be prevented. No one plays that way, for good reason.

I wouldn't say that. In your example, the tiger begins a full attack action, hits and grabs with the first strike and gains the grappled condition. I would suggest it’s still in the process of the full attack action and gets to complete it. Once completed, it is controlling and on its next turn can maintain the grapple (CMB+5 vs CMD) then inflict damage from “a natural attack” or “a light or one handed weapon” again in the singular.

Of course if the controlling grappler wants to release the grapple as a free action, it can take its full attack action again on its next turn. Hitting, grabbing, and completing the full attack, ending as the controlling grappler.

You are right that when you are Grappled, you can't take actions that require 2 hands to perform, and unless the character is very unusual, 2 claw attacks would indeed require 2 hands.

You can still Full Attack while Grappled, though. Your Character should have been able to make 1 Claw Attack and 1 Bite Attack.

Unarmed strikes and Armor Spikes do not specify the need to use "hands." The PC should be able to Full Attack with those.

Generally, Animals, Beasts, and such like the Eidolon don't have hands and should be able to Full Attack Normally.

If I had a character in your campaign who tried to Grapple a Tiger, for instance, would you not allow the Tiger it's Bite, both Claws, and the Rake? I think most GMs would give me the Claws!

If the grappled tiger still gets its 2 claws + bite + rake, what penalty does it suffer for being grappled? I mean, there has to be some down side to being grappled.

This is also for Society, so we go by the letter of the law. I’m saying a “full attack action” for the eidolon would be specifically 2 claws + 1 bite—all three things need to be there. The two claws part of that action requires two “hands,” so it technically violates the Rule As Written. That would mean that, technically, the whole thing does because some part of it requires two hands. Tossing that entire action out, the eidolon is left with a single attack action.

I’m running Pathfinder Society games and I have a regular player with a Hellhound Eidolon that gets 2 claws + bite. The Eidolon declares shenanigans against an owlbear and the owlbear accepts. In the ensuing melee, owlbear grapples Eidolon.

My player wanted to take a full attack action of 2 claws + bite while grappled. I ruled he could not and explained why, but he says he doesn’t understand my explanation. Please let me know if a) I’m making sense and b) I’m giving a correct RAW decision.

Rules:
If you are grappled…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.
You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack.

Reasoning:
The Hellhound Eidolon gets 2 claws from its multiple forelimbs, not high BAB, so it doesn’t get iterative attacks with a single appendage. In order to make a full attack, it needs both front limbs to make the 2 claw attacks. I’m counting these as “hands” for the purpose of the rule. So its full attack “action” would “require two hands” and thus violates the rule. Therefore, he’s reduced to a single attack…either one claw or one bite.

Moreover, the rule states you can take a full attack with a light or one-handed weapon—IN THE SINGULAR. Two claws are not one weapon.
Thoughts?