I realized the answer to the last question must be that the fused eidolon is dismissed when its temporary vigor points reach zero.
Search Posts
We recently started a new campaign and decided to use the Wounds and Vigor alternate rules along with Armor as Damage Reduction. I have always wanted to play a Synthesist summoner archetype. But the wounds and vigor rules are making it even more confusing than usual. Anyone care to help me figure this out? Specific issues: Original summoner rule: Eidolons are not sent back to their home plane until reduced to a number of negative hit points equal to or greater than their Constitution score.
Original rule: When the eidolon is summoned normally, the eidolon's hit points are unchanged from the last time it was dismissed or banished.
Original rule: When the eidolon is summoned after being slain, it returns with half its hit points.
Original rule for synthesist: The synthesist gains the eidolon's hit points as temporary hit points.
Thanks for your comments. Sounds like we're thinking along the same lines. I think I'll have to house rule this one and give my player some bad news... :)
In my last game we had a character who's a stalwart defender who had just come out of his defensive stance, so he was fatigued. The next round an enemy wizard appeared and cast Waves of Fatigue on the party. The spell says that characters who are already fatigued are unaffected. However, given that the stalwart defender's fatigue only lasts a few rounds, but the fatigue from Waves of Fatigue lasts until the target rests for 8 hours, it doesn't seem right to let him be immune to the spell. Thoughts?
I'm looking at the Snapping Turtle style feats. While using the Snapping Turtle Style feat with at least one hand free, you gain a +1 shield bonus to AC. This seems to imply that you can still use the feat without a free hand, but it just doesn't give you any benefit. Which is where the next one comes into play. While you are using the Snapping Turtle Style feat, the shield bonus the style grants to your AC applies to your CMD and touch AC. Whenever an opponent misses you with a melee attack while you are using the Snapping Turtle Style feat, you can use an immediate action to attempt a grapple combat maneuver against that opponent, but with a –2 penalty. Notice it says "while you are using the Snapping Turtle Style feat" without clarifying whether you need a free hand. Naturally you wouldn't get the shield bonus. But as written, it would appear that you can still get the grapple attempt, even if you don't have a free hand. This could be important if, say, you're already grappling someone and therefore using both hands. What do you think? Have I found a loophole in RAW? Even if you say you need a free hand and would therefore be taking a -4 penalty on your grapple checks, it sounds like this would let you get a free grapple check if the guy you're grappling decides to attack you and misses. In an unrelated case, would Snapping Turtle Clutch allow you to grapple someone who missed their attack of opportunity against you? AoOs count as melee attacks, right? With Dodge and Mobility, this could form a nasty trap. Simply provoke an AoO, and assuming they miss—bam! You've got them in your clutches.
So your normal attacks during the FoM full-attack cannot be used to sunder. The bonus CMs granted by FoM (presumably) can be. Oh, I see. Kazaan said that in his original post, too, but I somehow missed it. Thanks for the clarification.
I just remembered one other thing I wanted to run past y'all. Greater Grapple lets you maintain a grapple as a move action. The way I read it, that means you can't combine Greater Grapple with a Flurry of Maneuvers, because the extra grapple check is the wrong action type (move action rather than a standard action or attack action). Does that sound right?
Thanks for the replies and helping me think this through. All you need to do is order them by bab progression. After looking this up again, I'm not so sure. The rules for full attack say "If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest." But you can get extra attacks in other ways, including "for some special reason," which is how I would classify Flurry of Maneuvers. It doesn't give you multiple attacks because your BAB is high enough—it just gives them to you regardless of your BAB, which is why monks can do it at level 1. As a side note, if you DID need to go by order of BAB, that would mean the maneuvers always go first. FoM maneuvers use the monk's level as BAB, and that will always be higher than the monk's BAB for regular attacks. The Flurry of Maneuvers gives a penalty to the combat maneuver checks, but that doesn't change the actual BAB, right? It's just a penalty on the roll. Level 1 BAB +0 for regular attacks
However, there's a pretty big disagreement on the use of Sunder that you mentioned. Sunder, by RAW, requires you to use the Attack action. Some believe this can only be performed, by default, as a standard action while others believe that Attack and Full-Attack are, essentially, the same action or that Full-Attack consists of a number of distinct Attack actions. According to the first party, you cannot normally use Sunder to replace an attack in a full-attack action. I didn't realize there was a debate on that. I hadn't noticed the difference in wording until now. However, I don't think the argument changes anything in this case. Unless I'm just not seeing something, the Flurry of Maneuvers clause "regardless of whether the maneuver normally replaces a melee attack or requires a standard action" covers either argument you mentioned. Sunder says "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack." So sunder has to be part of an attack action. If you say that an attack action is a standard action, you're covered. If you don't say an attack action is a standard action, you're still covered since it could be done in place of a melee attack during a full attack. I don't see a conflict here. Greater Grapple lets you maintain as a move, meaning you can grapple then maintain and result in a pin in one round. (Bonus James Jacobs verification.) Then add Rapid Grappler onto that, which lets you do one more grapple as a swift action, and you could easily have someone hog tied in a single round. Or wait until the Maneuver Master gets Sweeping Maneuver at level 11, where you can do two combat maneuvers as a single standard action, followed by Greater Grapple. Combine all of those for four grapple checks in one round!
I'm working on a Maneuver Master monk, and have a few questions. I've searched the forums a bit and the consensus seems to be that the Flurry of Maneuvers ability lets you do a regular full attack, using whatever attacks you can normally make, plus make an extra combat maneuver on top of that. Flurry of Maneuvers:
At 1st level, as part of a full-attack action, a maneuver master can make one additional combat maneuver, regardless of whether the maneuver normally replaces a melee attack or requires a standard action. The maneuver master uses his monk level in place of his base attack bonus to determine his CMB for the bonus maneuvers, though all combat maneuver checks suffer a –2 penalty when using a flurry. At 8th level, a maneuver master may attempt a second additional combat maneuver, with an additional –3 penalty on combat maneuver checks. At 15th level, a maneuver master may attempt a third additional combat maneuver, with an additional –7 penalty on combat maneuver checks. This ability replaces flurry of blows. (Emphasis mine.) So.... At levels 1-7, as a full attack action, you could do 1 attack + 1 combat maneuver.
The questions: 1. Does it matter where in the sequence of your full attack the maneuver occurs? Can you, for example, do your extra combat maneuver first, followed by the rest of your regular full attack? So at level 8 you could do, say, a reposition, an unarmed strike, a disarm, then another unarmed strike? 2. At level 8, could your two extra combat maneuvers both be grapples? The Flurry of Maneuvers description says the maneuvers can be done "regardless of whether the maneuver normally replaces a melee attack or requires a standard action." Since maintaining a grapple is a standard action, it seems like you ought to be able to do that as one of your extra maneuvers. So you could initiate the grapple for your first extra maneuver, then maintain it as your second extra maneuver (allowing you to move, damage, or pin as usual). (Edit: Changed subject title since it ended up being about more than just grapple.)
That's what I was thinking. However, in another thread someone pointed out that since all of the animal companion's attacks do half the damage of the regular bestiary creature, the trample ability could follow that same reasoning. In that case it would do 1d8. Edit: added link.
I suppose that will be fixed in the next printing of the CRB. I hope so. As it is, redward is 100% correct. The reasoning given by the design team doesn't actually make any sense. There already are separate lists for Small and Medium characters, and the 4th level list for Medium characters doesn't have any animals that can legally be selected. The text needs to be fixed.
I ran across this same question recently. In another thread they were talking about what to do if you gave the trample ability to warhorses, and they assumed you'd use their regular hoof damage. Obviously that doesn't work for the arsinoitherium, since it doesn't have a hoof attack. Regarding your options: (a) Doesn't make sense. Otherwise, why give them the ability?
I can't think of any other options. I'm glad I ran across your post, though. You helped me reason it through. I feel comfortable using option (d).
I ran into this same question, except for another creature: the arsinoitherium. Its only attack is a gore attack with its horns. In the bestiary, it specifies the amount of damage from the trample as 2d8+13. But the entry for the druid's animal companion doesn't specify the damage. I guess you would just use the damage from the bestiary? It's the same as the animal companion's gore damage (the large version, at least).
Bodrin, you're talking about the creature ability Trample. I believe the OP was referring to the Trample feat. The overrun maneuver description is purely singular. Improved Overrun switches back and forth. Greater Overrun starts singular then switches to plural. Trample (the feat) sticks to singular. I didn't see any of them mention "any target" except on the Trample creature ability, which specifically states you can overrun multiple targets. Considering the inconsistency, and the fact that basic overrun only allows one target, I think they use the plurals in a generic sense without trying to imply you can overrun multiple foes. If that were true, they would specifically state it, as with the Trample creature ability Bodrin quoted.
Thanks for the feedback. I agree with you, but GM fiat will definitely rule the day. I'd appreciate anyone else's thoughts on this.
I am looking at a Cavalier using the Beast Rider archetype. One of the potential mounts is the arnisoitherium, which has a trample ability. This ability works just like overrun, with a few changes. Trample (Creature Ability):
As a full-round action, a creature with the trample ability can attempt to overrun any creature that is at least one size category Smaller than itself. This works just like the overrun combat maneuver, but the trampling creature does not need to make a check, it merely has to move over opponents in its path. Targets of a trample take an amount of damage equal to the trampling creature’s slam damage + 1-1/2 times its Str modifier. Targets of a trample can make an attack of opportunity, but at a –4 penalty. If targets forgo an attack of opportunity, they can attempt to avoid the trampling creature and receive a Reflex save to take half damage. The save DC against a creature’s trample attack is 10 + 1/2 the creature’s HD + the creature’s Str modifier (the exact DC is given in the creature’s descriptive text). A trampling creature can only deal trampling damage to each target once per round, no matter how many times its movement takes it over a target creature. So the creature ability Trample lets you overrun without making a check, but the target can choose to make an AoO at -4 or else try to avoid the trample by making a Reflex save to take half damage. It also looks like the creature can Trample more than one target, as long as they are at least one size smaller. It's a pretty cool ability. But what if the cavalier also takes the Trample feat? Trample (Feat):
When you attempt to overrun an opponent while mounted, your target may not choose to avoid you. Your mount may make one hoof attack against any target you knock down, gaining the standard +4 bonus on attack rolls against prone targets. Or what if the mount takes Improved Overrun and/or Greater Overrun? Improved Overrun:
You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when performing an overrun combat maneuver. In addition, you receive a +2 bonus on checks made to overrrun a foe. You also receive a +2 bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense whenever an opponent tries to overrun you. Targets of your overrun attempt may not choose to avoid you. Greater Overrun:
You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to overrun a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Overrun. Whenever you overrun opponents, they provoke attacks of opportunity if they are knocked prone by your overrun. The Trample feat obviously overlaps somewhat with Improved Overrun/Greater Overrun, but lacks the bonuses to CMB and CMD and the ability to avoid the AoO. It would be a waste to take all three. Improved Overrun and the Trample feat both make it so the target can't avoid the overrun. Greater Overrun and the Trample feat both give the creature a free attack if the overrun succeeds. The feat Improved Overrun additionally makes it so you don't provoke AoOs when doing an overrun. Do you think the rules support the idea that these could be combined somehow? I don't see anything in the wording of the different rules that makes it obvious they wouldn't work together. They all trigger from the attempt to overrun. If they were combined, the creature would get an auto-overrun that doesn't provoke AoO, can't be avoided, and does automatic damage against multiple (smaller) targets. That seems pretty crazy. Or would you say that the player has to pick one? Either a standard overrun buffed by feats (Improved Overrun/Greater Overrun or Trample), or else a standard creature Trample. That seems more reasonable, but again, I don't see anything to really prevent combining them. That doesn't mean it isn't there, though. Maybe I'm just not seeing it. Sometimes the interpretation of these things can turn on a single overlooked word.
That is very cool, but it actually isn't much like a Mongolian horse archer. He advocates going for the Snap Shot tree and getting right into the thick of combat at higher levels. It's still a sweet build, but it isn't a Mongol archer.
Thanks, guys. I think I wills start out with early firearms, and then maybe award an advanced one as an award later on.
One of my players wants to make a gunslinger, and I want to let him. I have read through the rules and now have a superficial understanding of them. However, I've never seen firearms in play. How is the gameplay different with early firearms versus advanced firearms? Obviously advanced firearms are faster, more reliable, and more deadly at further ranges. But how does this actually play out in the game? What's the power balance like between the two? How about compared to archery? Apologies if this has been discussed on the forums before, but I couldn't find anything. Thanks in advance.
Don't get caught up on the names. The names and descriptions of the classes are often about flavor more than actual mechanics. If they have the abilities you need them to have, then you've accomplished your goal. As DM, you can change the flavor however you want. It's your world!
What makes you think they can skip the prerequisites? The book says "A sohei may select Mounted Combat feats as bonus feats." It doesn't say that you get to skip the prerequisites. Ah, thanks! That is very cool. Maybe a bit overpowered to give them access to Trick Riding and Mounted Skirmisher at essentially 1st level, though.
What makes you think they can skip the prerequisites? The book says "A sohei may select Mounted Combat feats as bonus feats." It doesn't say that you get to skip the prerequisites.
First thing would be to get the Mounted Combat feat. This way they can more easily protect their mounts from both ranged and melee attacks. Mounted Combat gives you access to several more nifty mounted feats. Definitely get Mounted Archery to counteract the annoying nerf that archers get while mounted. You could also go for Trample so they can overrun anyone who gets too close. If you're going into higher levels, go for Trick Riding and Mounted Skirmisher for better protection and the ability to make full attacks while moving. A cavalier build might work. If you used the Emissary archetype, you'd get Mounted Combat as a bonus feat at level 1, plus Mobility for both rider and mount at level 5. But the Luring Cavalier might be even better. You can challenge one person within sight and get extra damage on that person. At third level, you get extra range. Combine that with Shot on the Run, Far Shot and the Run feat, and the PCs will never catch those bastards! You could also go for Rapid Shot and Manyshot for lots of extra attacks.
While we're waiting for the FAQ to be updated, I figured I'd argue a bit more about this.
I agree with this completely. If you read the entire text of Overrun, it becomes clear that the Overrun maneuver is indeed intended to be the attack that comes at the end of the charge. The book refers to combat maneuvers as attacks all the time. The text is just a little unclear on what type of attack is being referred to. When you attempt to overrun a target, it can choose to avoid you, allowing you to pass through its square without requiring an attack. If your target does not avoid you, make a combat maneuver check as normal. If your maneuver is successful, you move through the target's space. If your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD by 5 or more, you move through the target's space and the target is knocked prone. The first sentence here suggests that moving through the opponent's square requires an attack in order accomplish. Obviously it's not referring to a standard melee attack, because that wouldn't allow you to move through the square. It just wouldn't make sense. It's referring to the overrun itself. The next sentence tells you to make a combat maneuver check. The next two sentences describe the two potential outcomes of succeeding. Regular success refers to the action as a maneuver, while exceeding the opponent's CMD by 5 or more refers to the action as an attack. Again, they're using "attack" to refer to the overrun maneuver. Since the rules describe overrun as being an attack, it stands to reason that the overrun attempt was intended to be the attack that takes place at the end of the charge. Notice that the charge rules say "You only get to make one attack during a charge." Since an overrun is an attack, you would not be able to overrun and then attack again later during the charge (without Charge Through). The main point of using overrun with a charge is to allow you to move further than you would otherwise while moving through his square and beyond, instead of stopping in front of it. When overrun says it can be used as "part of a charge," it doesn't say what part. Some of you have been assuming it comes during the movement part of the charge. I argue that it is the attack part. The fact that the "in place of the melee attack" clause was left out of the overrun description is still a bit troubling, but doesn't necessarily mean that overrun was intended to be an additional attack. The fact that the charge rules don't specify that overrun gets the +2 bonus from the charge is also troubling. However, I still think the rules support overrun replacing the attack at the end of the charge.
Any number of targets that are in your path on the way to the target of a charge are given free overrun attempts and trample damage if you overcome them.Is there any ruling about that or is it just an interpretation? I have been looking for a post about it but could not find any. That is just an interpretation. Charge rules specifically state that you can't charge if your movement takes you through the square of any other creature.
This is something I wondered about also. If I ready an an action to attack as soon as in melee range with a sword, and my horse has spring attack. The horse moves in, I attack when close enough, because with a ready, I can even interrupt another's turn, and my horse attacks, then moves back, neither of us provoke from movement? Does that sound right? You cannot use ready actions in mounted combat this way. Ready actions have to be declared after finishing a turn but before taking the next. But controlling your mount takes a move action. Therefore, your move action to control the mount would negate any ready action you had declared.
I would LOVE to see the maps and creatures from Paizo products available in the d20pro marketplace! As it is, I have to spend many hours creating stuff by hand, knowing that dozens of others have probably labored to do the same thing. I would gladly pay some extra for d20pro-importable Paizo content—particularly the Kingmaker adventure path series. The only way my gaming group can meet regularly is to play remotely using d20pro. I know my players would also be willing to pitch in and buy some content if it meant we could play more often and more efficiently. Bring it on, Paizo!
I vote for Bonnie the iconic witch.
Wow, lots of great ideas here! I tend towards keeping it simple. I think I'll model it on Diplomacy, since that's the closest match anyway. The Diplomacy skill can be used pretty much whole cloth, I think, with a few tweaks. First, the descriptions of the steps would have to be adjusted slightly to reflect faith rather than how much you are "liked." Instead of hostile, they would be devout members of another religion already, which would be the default starting point. Instead of unfriendly, they would be perhaps doubtful about their current religion or just semi-devoted (or neutral). Instead of indifferent, they would be open to new ideas. Instead of friendly, they would be fledgling members of the new religion, and instead of helpful they would be fully converted to the new religion. Then I also really like Jeranimus's idea of doing two acts of charity (free healings, gifts of food or money, eliminating threats, etc.) to make the new outlook permanent. This shouldn't be too terribly difficult to work in, since the Kingmaker adventure provides ample opportunities for this kind of stuff already. It could occur during any of the kingdom phases, or as the result of one of the existing quests or encounters. I would also say you could only ever move one step at a time, and you could only try once a month. I'd probably apply some bonuses and/or penalties to the Diplomacy roll for various things similar to the Leadership score. Perhaps factor in how closely related or opposed the old religion is, the reputation of the character, and his stability. I think I would use this for both individual NPCs and for whole communities, except that for communities the degree of your Diplomacy success would determine what percentage of the community is converted--probably never as high as 100%. How does that sound? Any flaws or other ideas?
I am currently running a Kingmaker campaign. One of my players is playing an Inquisitor. One of his game goals is to build up his character's religion in the kingdom, and I'd like to accommodate him. He wants to do things like convert the NPC leaders and townsfolk. Any advice on how to handle preaching attempts and long term conversion? The rules talk about Diplomacy improving a person's attitude by steps, saying the improvement lasts 4 hours, or longer subject to GM discretion. I hesitate to allow a single Diplomacy roll to result in the permanent improvement of attitude, let alone permanent conversion to a religion, but I'm not sure how else to handle it. How many rolls should it take? Or is there some other method you'd suggest? A secondary question... I'm not sure how prominent Erastil turns out to be later on in the Kingmaker adventure paths. Is there going to be some conflict if my player builds up a religion worshiping a different deity than Erastil?
Thanks Zylphryx. Your reply was very clear, and if it had been first I would not have needed any clarification!
OK, so other than all my mistakes, I was right! :D Thanks for the clarifications. I'm on the right track now, I just need to be more careful when adding up the numbers.
track the classes separately. So they get two sets of bonus spells. Just to clarify, a level 1 Cleric/level 1 Wizard with an 18 Int and 18 Wis gets the following spell slots: Cleric
Wizard
And a level 1 Cleric/level 1 Inquisitor with an 18 Wis would get the following spell slots: Cleric
Inquisitor
Alright, I know this is probably a noob question, but I've gotta ask it... How do bonus spells work when you multiclass? Say you take two spellcasting classes where their bonus spells are determined by different ability scores. Do you get two sets of bonus spells? If not, how do you know which ability score to use to determine bonus spells?
With the recently announced (today) nerfs to grappling in today's blog post, I can't see any reason to even grapple anymore. I hadn't seen the blog post, so I was a little freaked out until I read it. It's not really a change in the rules. If you read the grappling rules, it explicitly states that you can choose to attack while being grappled. I would argue that grappling can still be worth it in many cases, and I have been going back and forth with some people on the blog post about it.
With just two successful rolls, the second one having a huge advantage (you +5, him -4), you can end the combat. I agree with just about everything you said, but the -4 effective penalty to Dex (-2 to CMD) is countered by your -2 to attacks (including CMB) for also having the grappled condition. Remember that the -2 doesn't apply to grapple checks, though. Just attacks and other combat maneuvers.
Dire Mongoose is right. A single one-handed attack isn't likely to be at 100% effectiveness. And they would have attacked you that turn anyway. You're trading one thing for another.
You say that like breaking free from a pin is virtually guaranteed. Again, unless your opponent wants to drop his weapon, he's at -4 to all grapple checks. You are also ignoring the huge benefits of Greater Grapple. Anyone who is serious about grappling should have this feat. Anyway, I'm not going to argue it anymore. What we have here is one guy who is determined to hate grappling and only liked it before because he misunderstood the rules.
If by full attack you mean with one light weapon in one hand, the preferred attack routine for basically no one good at hitting things, then yes.
I still have to point out that you're complaining about something that has been in the rules since day one. If you didn't realize it was there, you just weren't thinking it through. As with any attack strategy, there are situations where you wouldn't want to use it. It's kind of silly to complain that there are a few ways to counter a grapple. It's like you want grapple to be a universal winning move. Well, it isn't, but there are still plenty of situations where grapple can work well. If you really want to grapple someone with a strong one-handed attack, you can get Greater Grapple (which every serious grappler should have anyway). If you want to grapple a creature with eight natural attacks, you must be insane to begin with. If you want to grapple a magic user, make sure you have a backup plan when they use Freedom of Movement on you. Use grapple when it makes sense, don't use it when it doesn't. And by the way, just because I'm defending grapple as a general strategy doesn't mean I agree with this rule. I think it's ridiculous that someone could attack you at all with a sword when you're basically bear hugging them or hanging on their back. Just try to picture it in your head. Most swords are longer than your arm. There is no possible angle at which you could stab them, especially when your opponent is trying to pin your arms. The best you could do would be to get an awkward slash on their back or leg with less than your full strength behind it. On the other hand, if you had a light weapon like a dagger, it might actually be MORE effective at that close range. I think 3.5 had it right in that respect. (If you really want a combat system with that kind of realistic detail, you should check out the Codex Martialis supplement. I think you can find it on RPGnow.com.) Edit: Dire Mongoose, you totally ninja'd me, and with fewer words, too.
I'm a big grappling guy. I apologize if this is too long. First, grappling didn't get nerfed. No rules have been changed. If you read the grappled condition, it's clear that grappled people can make one-handed attacks with their -2 penalty. If you never realized that, it's your own limited thinking at work. Grappling can still be superior to a regular attack. Once you succeed on your first grapple, you get a +5 to subsequent attempts, and your opponent has a -4 penalty to his Dex, which lowers his CMD. Next round it should be relatively simple to maintain the grapple, and then you do automatic damage with a one-handed attack, no roll required. Or you could pin the guy or tie him up. Combat over. It's not as easy to break a grapple as some of you are suggesting. If they are still holding onto a weapon with one hand, they get -4 to their grapple check. They could drop the weapon and try to break the grapple without the penalty, but then they're weaponless. At best they have spent one round not being able to attack, at worst they're weaponless. If they decide to skip breaking the grapple and attack instead, OK, that kinda sucks—they got one extra attack attempt on you at -2. But the next round you make your +5 grapple check (they are still at -4 Dex) and pin the guy or tie him up. Combat over. The point of grapple is to immobilize people, not necessarily kill them. With just two successful rolls, the second one having a huge advantage (you +5, him -4), you can end the combat. At worst you get attacked once (at -2) in the process, or else have to try again. If you're really serious about grappling, you should also get the Greater Grapple feat so you can do it in one round with a +4 to all your grapple checks.
Surely it's been addressed before on the forums somewhere!? I've just been doing a few searches, and this is what I came up with: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/questionAboutTheGrapplingRules
In both of these threads, the consensus seems to be that both actions taken with Greater Grapple are considered to be maintaining actions. Nothing official, it's just what other people understand the rules to be saying. On the other hand, there's this thread which deals with the same question I posted: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/barbarianAnimalFuryGrappling2chiu The two people who replied to this question differed on whether the second grapple check is considered to be a maintain or not. I guess that wasn't really so helpful, and there's no official answer anywhere that I can find.
Incidentally, would you (Mathwei) personally consider removing or reducing the -4 to the second claw attack if the barbarian also had the Brutal Pugilist archetype? The Savage Grapple ability halves the penalties from being in the grappled condition, while Improved Savage Grapple removes the penalties entirely. The combination of Brutal Pugilist, Animal Fury, and Beast Totem with the Greater Grapple feat makes one mean grappling bastar... I mean barbarian. But only allowing one bite and one claw attack per round kind of nerfs that whole setup. I guess you would still have the advantage of reducing their ability to defend themselves and attack you back, which is a big advantage. With all your bonuses to grappling, and their penalties, it would be pretty easy to keep the grapple going, and get the automatic damage, or else just tie them up and coup de grace. Either way, it sounds fun!
I think you're still thinking about it wrong. It's not two claw attacks. It's two grapple checks, with the result that you get to apply damage from your existing natural attack ability. Think of it this way. You're grappling somebody, and they're struggling to get free. You roll to keep them down, and succeed. You've either got a fist, a knife, or your claws literally two inches from their body at most, and they can hardly move. It's trivial at that point to just jab them with whatever you've got. Your claws are probably sticking into their skin already, and all you have to do is flex your fingers. It's not an actual claw attack. It's a grapple check that allows your claws to do automatic damage, because your opponent can't move. That's my interpretation, at least. And I think the example with the knife still holds up under that interpretation.
The first question is simply a matter of interpreting the intent of the Greater Grapple feat and how it modifies normal grappling. Surely it's been addressed before on the forums somewhere!? Although I am starting to think that the description of the barbarian's Animal Fury wasn't written with the Greater Grapple feat in mind. To really settle it, we'll probably need an official statement. As for the second question, I'm now convinced that it doesn't make sense to allow a bite attack before maintaining and another after, especially if you're doing it twice per round. For one thing, I just can't picture it in my head—some guy biting over and over and over like some crazy piranha. The intent of the Animal Fury ability, in my mind, is that you latch on with your teeth to help hold your opponent down, which incidentally does damage. On subsequent rounds, any additional damage you do with that attack could be thought of as just tightening your jaws and perhaps twisting and shaking a bit to do extra damage, rather than letting go and biting again (which seems like it would give your enemy another chance to escape). And the successful bites would then facilitate the extra claw damage allowed by Greater Grapple. None of that is really RAW, but it makes sense to me.
I personally prefer pedantic and detailed responses. If we are going to understand what each other is saying it helps to spell it out. Excellent. :) You don't use your move action to maintain the grapple, you use it to make a grapple check and if that succeeds you maintain the grapple while doing one of the defined Grapple actions. There is nothing in the description of this ability that says or implies that this is a free attack it only states that you CAN make this attack if you choose to if you want. But flatly by RAW if it doesn't state that it's a free or extra attack then it will take up that specific attack for the round. I could concede that these add up to not allowing two bites per grapple action. But I think you and I agree that the claws are still an option. The next question is whether you could claw twice.
In my mind, the Greater Grapple feat DOES specifically grant you a second attack. But it's NOT a natural attack. It's a grapple attack, which automatically comes bundled with the ability to do damage "equal to" a natural attack. I think you're still making the mistake of considering the damage you can do after a successful grapple as an actual natural attack, rather than damage "equal to" a natural attack. I don't think anyone would argue (or would they?) that someone with a small knife couldn't do that damage twice using Greater Grapple. It's not a knife attack, it's a grapple attack which allows you to do damage equal to whatever weapon you have in your free hand, whether that be your knuckles, your knife, or your claws. Looks to me like, by the strict wording, the Barbarian gets a bite attack before his first grapple attempt which deals damage gives him +2 to all grapple checks for the round. Then, he can make two grapple checks due to Greater Grapple, and on each of those that succeeds, he can apply the bite damage again. But he does not get a second bite attack before the second grapple check; however, the +2 bonus to the check from the first bite still applies. Revan, the Barbarian's bite attack is made as part of a grapple action. Normally, when you're getting just one grapple action per turn, I would say you are correct. But Greater Grapple gives you two grapple actions per turn. Hence two bites per turn. That's my stance. Edit: Fixed quote tags.
It looks like a couple of other people have posted replies while I've been crafting this pedantic and detailed post. I think their ideas are correct and address the issue, but I'll post my lengthy reply anyway in case anyone is interested: Mathwei, I disagree with your interpretation of maintaining and Greater Grapple. I think we need to establish what would happen with a normal grapple as a baseline. I'm going to quote the relevant rules from Grappling here:
The actions in question are Move, Damage, Pin, and Tie Up. So in summary, round 1 you start the grapple. Round 2 you have to make a grapple check to maintain. As part of the maintain check, you also get to either move, damage, pin, or tie up. If you choose to damage, you can do damage equivalent to one natural attack. Note that this is not an actual attack. It's just damage equivalent to one.
With Greater Grapple in round 2, you use your first move action to maintain the grapple, which entails any one of the free actions, including damage. Greater Grapple also allows you to make a second grapple check (to move, harm, or pin). So you could choose to damage a second time. Are we in agreement so far? This is just standard grappling stuff, but I could be getting it wrong, which will change what's below. Now let's look at how the Barbarian's abilities modify this baseline.
Mathwei, I can see your point here. It specifically states that the bite is part of the maintain, with the modification that it is done BEFORE the grapple check. You could read that as implying that you could not then choose to bite again. However, what if you are trying to pin? Could you bite, grapple, and then pin? If the answer is yes, why couldn't you choose to damage instead of pin? My interpretation is that the barbarian's bite attack is an extra attack that helps him grapple. If he then chooses to do damage as part of his grapple, he should be able to do bite damage again, or at least do claw damage. Again, this is not an attack, it's just damage equivalent to one.
As Talonhawke mentioned, this is referring to full attack actions, not additional attacks from feats, maneuvers, or special abilities. In this case, the barbarian has three natural attacks: a bite and two claws. They are all primary attacks. His additional attacks from having a high base attack bonus do not apply here. He gets three attacks per round at his full base attack bonus, regardless of whether he would otherwise get extra attacks or not.
So the only thing limiting his natural attacks while grappling is the fact that he has to be using at least one hand to maintain the grapple. He still has the other hand free to attack with while grappling. Per Greater Grapple, he can make two grapple checks per round, each of which allows a damage action. This feat would allow him to use the same hand to do damage twice per round (again, they aren't attacks, just damage). Edit: clarified that the damage from maintaining a grapple isn't an attack.
Yes, I was asking if a single successful grapple gives two claw attacks. Your reasoning makes sense, and it's stated in the description—you only get one attack. After all, you're trying to hold someone down, so it takes at least one hand to do that. The other hand could be freed to make the attack. I'm glad someone else has reached the same conclusions as me on this stuff. Now I just hope my GM agrees as well after I explain it to him!
Re: 1. The Greater Grapple feat states that you can make two grapple checks per round, essentially you could make two maintains. And I believe the point of a maintain isn't necessarily to get a better hold unless you pin your opponent. It's simply to maintain your current hold while allowing you to do other stuff, like move, tie them up, or do damage. Re: 2. Numerous other posts here on the boards have pointed out that the Bestiary and later errata have stated that bite natural attacks are always considered primary attacks. I would assume this is the case with the Animal Fury attack, and it's only at -5 when used as a secondary attack (i.e., if you're using a regular weapon as your primary attack.). This is implied by the description in any case, since it says you get the -5 "if" used as part of a full attack--not necessarily if it's made as your only/primary attack. Re: the claw attack, would you say I could claw twice or just once?
I'm trying to build a grappling barbarian, but I don't quite understand how it would work with natural attacks such as his Animal Fury or Lesser Beast Totem rage powers. Example 1: Round 1, the barbarian successfully get into a grapple (thanks to his +4 from Improved Grapple and Greater Grapple). Round 2, he has to maintain. Animal Fury states that you get a free bite attack before you do a grapple maintain, and if you hit you get a +2 on the maintain. He's got the Greater Grapple feat, so it's a move action to maintain. So, round 2, he does his move action to maintain and gets a free bite first. Along with the maintain, he can do damage using a natural attack. So he could bite again. For his next action, he can maintain again thanks to Greater Grapple. So he gets his free bite first, then his natural weapon damage for another bite. So he's essentially biting four times a round. (Do you think Mike Tyson had this feat?) Does that sound right? I know there had been some question about whether the Animal Fury bite attack could be considered a primary attack or not, but my understanding is that the Bestiary rules prevail and it IS a primary attack, unless you're attacking with a normal melee weapon first. Example 2: Identical to example 1, except the barbarian chooses to use his claw ability from Lesser Beast Totem as his natural attack damage after maintaining the grapple. Does he get to use both claw attacks, or just one? |