I just wanted to confirm that I am reading the grapple rules right, with reference to the "grappled" condition (page 400).
Can a grappled character attack someone outside of the grapple? I am unable to see any rules preventing this. I only see a reference to there being a -2 penalty to the attack.
If you can attack out of a grapple, should you not make a grapple check to see if you avoid letting go of the peron you are grappling?
Should larger creatures get any advantage to be able to maintain a grapple and still attack?
Here's what brought on this discussion:
- A large creature with 2 attacks attacked a party member and grappled him. On the next round, for it's 1st attack the creature made a successful check to maintain the grapple and constricted the character. With its second attack, it attacked another party member.
The player believed that a grappled opponent could not attack out of a grapple. (Which does make sense, however we could not find any rules that prevented it). The player thought he remembered some 3.5 rule that indicated that only a creature 2 size categories larger than the grappled opponent could attack outside of grapple.
Any thoughts on this?
Can a grappled character attack someone outside of the grapple? I am unable to see any rules preventing this. I only see a reference to there being a -2 penalty to the attack.
(If you couldn't attack outside the grapple, what use would this penalty have?)
If you can attack out of a grapple, should you not make a grapple check to see if you avoid letting go of the peron you are grappling?
If they have also succeeded on a Grapple Check vs. YOU, of course the Grapple is not ended :-)
Should larger creatures get any advantage to be able to maintain a grapple and still attack?
Here's what brought on this discussion:
- A large creature with 2 attacks attacked a party member and grappled him. On the next round, for it's 1st attack the creature made a successful check to maintain the grapple and constricted the character. With its second attack, it attacked another party member.
It's not THAT complicated, though unfortunately the rules are split between the Combat Chapter & Glossary.
I'm hoping for Grapple to become an Attack Equivalent Action instead of Standard, which would make it more compatable with Iterative Attacks (for non-Improved Grab combatants), which also allows you to attack out-of-grapple (at a penalty) simultaneously. The per-round pacing for Pin could still persist with such a move, so I don't see a reason why that can't be adopted.
One bit of wording I'd like to see cleared up:
"If you do not have Improved Grapple, improved grab, or a similar ability, attempting to grapple a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver."
Likewise, one bit that was in 3.5's Grapple but not Pathfinder is that 3.5 said Grappled creatures DID NOT THREATEN, i.e. could not take AoOs outside the Grapple, but I don't see this anywhere is Pathfinder....????
Here's what brought on this discussion:
- A large creature with 2 attacks attacked a party member and grappled him. On the next round, for it's 1st attack the creature made a successful check to maintain the grapple and constricted the character. With its second attack, it attacked another party member.
Any thoughts on this?
In Pathfinder, you can attack someone that you're not grappling. However, your example above probably wouldn't work; with the Improved Grab special ability, I believe you stop making attacks once you begin grappling UNLESS you use the "grapple at -20" option. Here's the quote from the SRD I'm referring to:
Hopefully Improved Grab will be clarified a bit when the Pathfinder Bestiary comes out.
In Pathfinder, you can attack someone that you're not grappling. However, your example above probably wouldn't work; with the Improved Grab special ability, I believe you stop making attacks once you begin grappling UNLESS you use the "grapple at -20" option. Here's the quote from the SRD I'm referring to:
That was the 3.5 usage, where you didn't threaten (and hence, couldn't attack) outside the grapple.
There's nothing in Imp. Grab that says you CAN'T use remaining attacks - the benefits of taking the -20 penalty seem to be about countering "normal" limitations of 3.5 Grapple. Thus, since those limitations no longer apply in PF, I wouldn't expect that aspect of Improved Grab to carry over in Pathfinder (though a way for the Grappler to not be Grappled would make sense, just probably not worth -20 anymore).Hopefully Improved Grab will be clarified a bit when the Pathfinder Bestiary comes out.
|
yea but grapple uses both hands. so unless you have 3 hands, i dn't see it being a viable option. especially sence you take such sever AC penalties versus outside opponents.
on the flip side, if imp grab makes it a move action to maintain a grapple and do damage, then attacking with your standard action makes sence. Though i would us the attack to do maore damage to the person i have grappled, and thus have a +5 to attack on top of there loss of Dex.
Can a grappled character attack someone outside of the grapple? I am unable to see any rules preventing this.
maintaining a grapple requires a standard action each turn (pg 150).
multiple attacks require a full round action in almost all situations (pg 138).so, if you are 'grappling someone' and want to maintain the grapple you can't attack someone else without some exceptional ability. if you are 'being grappled' by someone then you aren't using a standard action to maintain the grapple and can take a full round action to make multiple attacks (so long as you don't require two hands for it: flurry of blows or two-weapon fighting for example).
yea but grapple uses both hands. so unless you have 3 hands, i dn't see it being a viable option
Seriously, what rules are you looking at?
I know the way Beta's Grapple is split into different sections is confusing, but try reading it closer:"Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll. "
...So, Sounds like 3 hands AREN'T actually necessary.
Sure, your Grapple Attack would be at -4, but since you can currently only Grapple + Melee Attack by using Greater Grapple (as Move Action) unless you are an Improved Grab Monster, most people melee attacking are choosing to do so INSTEAD of Grappling. If your target happens to be Flanked, it cancels out the -2 to-hit from being Grappled.
It sounds like you're focusing on the perspective of someone who WANTED to initiate the Grapple in the first place and wants to maintain it, but the other half of the story is some put into a grapple: They are actually only minorly penalized to melee attacks, though they can't use a 2-Handed Weapon while Grappled.
Equally, if you take the Greater Grapple Feat (after Improved Grapple), you can Grapple as a Move Action (!), which means you can actually use your ENTIRE Full Attack as MELEE Attacks against your Grapple opponent or ANYONE ELSE in Range (if you care about maintaining the Grapple, you'd probably only do that if you succeed on the Move-Action Grapple).
...especially sence you take such sever AC penalties versus outside opponents. on the flip side, if imp grab makes it a move action to maintain a grapple and do damage, then attacking with your standard action makes sence. Though i would us the attack to do maore damage to the person i have grappled, and thus have a +5 to attack on top of there loss of Dex.
"If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds."
First of all, the AC penalty is -2 (-4 DEX) which isn't any more "severe" than Flanking,
and second of all, HOW DOES AN AC PENALTY AFFECT YOUR ATTACKS? (It doesn't!)
Of course, there's also a -2 attack penalty but that's not THAT signifigant if you have full BAB & Iteratives, and if you're attacking your Grappler with melee, it cancels out vs. the Grapple DEX/AC penalty.
I certainly have some changes I'd like to see in Grapple and Maneuvers in general (Grapple as Attack Action & Maneuver AC so Fighting Defensively works vs. Maneuvers), but you should actually read what is in Beta to focus your feedback on real issues and not imagined rules.
|
|
The way i understand it is that, because both combatants gain the grappled condition, if you attack with a weapon then you take a -4 to the attack roll. So, unless you are making an unarmed attack at someone outside the grapple, the -4 still applies. along with negs to dex, etc, etc. And as far as the imp. Grab, and all those other feats. only a grapple specialist would take all of those, and he would most likely be the one initiating a grapple. I am not saying it isn't possible, just an outside possibility.
Not to mention drawing the attension of someone who now gets to attack you in a defenceless position.
The way i understand it is that, because both combatants gain the grappled condition, if you attack with a weapon then you take a -4 to the attack roll.
In Pathfinder, it's only a -2 penalty (not -4).
I haven't been testing out the grappling rules enough to get in the middle of this, however:
Equally, if you take the Greater Grapple Feat (after Improved Grapple), you can Grapple as a Move Action (!), which means you can actually use your ENTIRE Full Attack as MELEE Attacks against your Grapple opponent or ANYONE ELSE in Range (if you care about maintaining the Grapple, you'd probably only do that if you succeed on the Move-Action Grapple).
You cannot make an "Entire full Attack" when you have already used a move action. You have a standard action remaining, for typically a single attack.
You cannot make an "Entire full Attack" when you have already used a move action. You have a standard action remaining, for typically a single attack.
Ah, of course...
Perhaps I should lay off the "post-on-paizo past my bedtime" habit :-)