You can attack with a light weapon in a grapple. An unarmed strike always counts as a light weapon.
I don't see how this would be possible without houseruling the BETA rules.
Flurry of blows is a full round attack.
But you can't make full round attacks when grappling. In fact, you can't make any attacks at all when grappling.
As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options.
This is how you begin a grapple. So during that round, you cannot attack at all. Your standard action is consumed with the grapple attempt.
For subsequent rounds:
If you successfully grapple an opponent, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold.
Which means that you can maintain the grapple round after round, but doing so consumes your standard action in each of those rounds.
Which means that not only can you not make a full-round attack, but you cannot make any attacks at all while you are grappling, as all you have left are move actions, swift actions, and free actions, none of which generally allow any attacks.
Now, you can damage your opponent:
Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions.
Damage: You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed damage. This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal.
Note that this is not an attack. It is simply calculating your unarmed damage and applying it without needing any attack rolls to hit. You've earned the right to damage (or pin, etc.) your foe by making your grapple check this round, so no further attack rolls are needed or allowed - just apply your damage.
Now, let's talk special effects:
Some other games (example: Champions/Hero) have taught us that the same exact power/ability can be described in different ways.
So what the OP is talking about here can simply be a special effect.
A jujitsu-style monk might grapple a foe with a choke hold, applying non-lethal damage until the foe goes unconscious.
A mui-thai-style monk might grapple a foe with a frontal grab and pound his ribs with knee attacks, applying lethal damage until he kills his foe.
And so on.
How you describe your grapple, and how you apply the damage you're allowed to apply, can vary widely with the style you choose and the special effects you wish to describe.
But those special effects don't change the rules - fortunately the rules are broad enough (apply unarmed damage is pretty vague about how you choose to apply the damage, and choosing lethal or non-lethal expands the breadth) to allow for many different ways to describe the special effects.
Hope that helps.
You can attack with a light weapon in a grapple. An unarmed strike always counts as a light weapon.
Yes, but then you are choosing not to maintain the grapple.
Besides, Pathfinder has some different rules for this:
Grappled: A grappled creature is being restrained by another creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to their Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character that attempts to cast a spell must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell’s level) or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.
This is different than the d20 SRD which says:
Attack Your Opponent
You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling. You take a -4 penalty on such attacks.
This rule seems to have gone away in Pathfinder, being replaced with the ability to attack with any weapon at a -2 penalty.
So there's a conflict in the rules between SRD and Pathfinder Beta. So if you're playing Pathfinder (this is a Pathfinder forum), then it would seem the new Pathfinder rule trumps the old SRD rule, but in the end it's up to each DM or group to decide which rule they prefer.
But, note, as shown in my previous post, maintaining a grapple requires you to spend your standard action every round on maintaining the grapple (Pathfinder grapple rules). Which means you have no actions left for attacking.
So, while your post that you can attack while grappled (with light weapons or any other weapons) is true, it also means that you stop grappling when you choose to attack instead.
So, if the big bad anaconda grabs you, then the anaconda will be making those grapple checks each round, and no doubt applying its unarmed damage every round until you're dead. You have the choice to grapple back, or escape the grapple, or simply whip out your greatsword and hack the anaconda to bits (taking a -2 penalty on your attack rolls).
But, if you're the anaconda, or the OP's monk, once you grapple the opponent, you're done attacking him with real attacks. Maintain the grapple and apply your unarmed damage just once each round, or let him go and unload a flurry of blows on him. But not both.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
You can attack with a light weapon in a grapple. An unarmed strike always counts as a light weapon.Yes, but then you are choosing not to maintain the grapple.
Besides, Pathfinder has some different rules for this:
Grappled: A grappled creature is being restrained by another creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to their Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character that attempts to cast a spell must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell’s level) or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.So, while your post that you can attack while grappled (with light weapons or any other weapons) is true, it also means that you stop grappling when you choose to attack instead.
So, if the big bad anaconda grabs you, then the anaconda will be making those grapple checks each round, and no doubt applying its unarmed damage every round until you're dead. You have the choice to grapple back, or escape the grapple, or simply whip out your greatsword and hack the anaconda to bits (taking a -2 penalty on your attack rolls).
Not quite accurate. Since you can't take any action that requires 2 hands while you're grappled, you can't use ANY weapon while you're in a grapple, only those that don't require two hands. In your annaconda example, you could whip out a longsword and attack it with a -2, but not a greatsword, since that requires 2 hands.
Not quite accurate. Since you can't take any action that requires 2 hands while you're grappled, you can't use ANY weapon while you're in a grapple, only those that don't require two hands. In your annaconda example, you could whip out a longsword and attack it with a -2, but not a greatsword, since that requires 2 hands.You can attack with a light weapon in a grapple. An unarmed strike always counts as a light weapon.Yes, but then you are choosing not to maintain the grapple.
Besides, Pathfinder has some different rules for this:
Grappled: A grappled creature is being restrained by another creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to their Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character that attempts to cast a spell must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell’s level) or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.So, while your post that you can attack while grappled (with light weapons or any other weapons) is true, it also means that you stop grappling when you choose to attack instead.
So, if the big bad anaconda grabs you, then the anaconda will be making those grapple checks each round, and no doubt applying its unarmed damage every round until you're dead. You have the choice to grapple back, or escape the grapple, or simply whip out your greatsword and hack the anaconda to bits (taking a -2 penalty on your attack rolls).
Good catch.
I was going for the big guns to make the example and momentarily forgot the two-hand thing, even though I provided the quote myself.
So yeah, longsword, or battle-axe, or even the greatsword if you use the Monkey Grip feat :).
On a side note:
The rule that you can take no action that requires two hands to perform means that it is almost impossible for a humanoid to apply any decent grapple.
Almost every martial arts maneuver that counts as a real attempt to grapple someone uses both hands. Everything from Full Nelson to Rear Naked Choke to A-Frames. Except, of course, the choke holds that use your legs instead of arms (those invariably use two legs, and most use two legs and at least one hand/arm, too).
Technically not on the monkey grip feat: It doesn't give you the ability to use a weapon as if it is one size smaller, it allows you to use a weapon that is a size bigger than normal as if it was sized for you.
So if you have monkey grip you could use a large long sword against the anaconda (with a total penalty of -4) but not a medium greatsword because it still takes two hands to use it.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I would probably houserule that a mu thai stlyle monk could use flurry of blows(ie knee strikes) during a grapple but remove say the slow fall class feature. Trust me as someone who has had their a$$ kicked by a mu thai fighter (back when I was kickboxing) this is VERY accurate for those guys.
It would be a cool monk class feature or bonus feat to let them make their flurry while in a grapple.
I would probably houserule that a mu thai stlyle monk could use flurry of blows(ie knee strikes) during a grapple but remove say the slow fall class feature. Trust me as someone who has had their a$$ kicked by a mu thai fighter (back when I was kickboxing) this is VERY accurate for those guys.
As someone who has choked out and been choked out in sparring/training fights with other grapplers, I can say for certain that the brief amount of time it takes to go from fighting to sleeping is every bit as fast and usually faster than the amount of time it taks to go from healthy to broken ribs by sustaining those kickboxing knees.
I don't think flurry of blows is required to represent either of those methods of applying damage while grappling, but of course, what you feel for your game is your own decision.
I would caution you though.
Giving monks this ability will turn them into lethal killing machines. Think it through.
If a monk can do that, he will do that. The ability to grapple his opponent, which applies the Grappled condition, keeps them from moving, lowers their AC, etc., and then pound on them with a full flurry of blows against their weakened AC, and when they fight back, they take penalties.
Wow.
That's very, very uber.
Before you rule it into play, build a level 5 monk and a level 5 fighter and drop them into an arena. Do it again at level 8, level 12, level 15, and level 18.
For each arena match, fight it out once with the RAW and once with your proposed change. For the purposes of the test, don't allow fumbles or crits (too swingy and they will skew the data with such small sampling groups).
My expectation is that your rule change, while it seems quite minor, will result in that monk literally wiping the floor with the fighter at all levels.
Maybe I'm wrong. I won't know for sure unless I test it.
(can you tell I'm a test engineer by trade?)
But my initial reaction is one of "holy heck that's a hugely powerful ability!".
And probably way, way, way more benefit than the loss of slow fall, which I've seen monks use about twice since 3.x came out, compared to seeing monks in hundreds of fights where a tactic like this would have destroyed their foes.
At the very least, I would suggest not forgetting that your mui thai kickboxing monk is also grappled (both parties in the grapple get the "grappled" condition. So he gets the same penalties to attacks and AC and everything, so at least his opponent can fight back and the penalties will offset.
As a second caution, if you're going to allow your monk to land a full-attack option while grappled/grappling, you ought to let his opponent do the same thing.
Your monk wants to grapple a Girallon and go full-on flurry of blows? Well, on the girallon's turn, he's gonna pound the monk 6 times too.
Whatever you do, beware of giving your monk a "win button" attack that devastates his enemies at no real cost to him.
Hah, or maybe just make him pay for the uber killing attack with other class features. Take away Slow Fall, Fast Movement, Bonus AC, and Ki powers. Now he's an unarmed killing machine, but he's not such a mystical meditate-and-contemplate-your-naval monk, and he's a little easier to kill if you get him out of his grapple-of-death element.
(that list is off the top of my head and may not be the best selection of class features to sacrifice for the "win button").
Technically not on the monkey grip feat: It doesn't give you the ability to use a weapon as if it is one size smaller, it allows you to use a weapon that is a size bigger than normal as if it was sized for you.
So if you have monkey grip you could use a large long sword against the anaconda (with a total penalty of -4) but not a medium greatsword because it still takes two hands to use it.
Hmmm, another rules debate... :)
Here's what I read of the feat.
It allows you to use a melee weapon that is one size category larger than you are at a -2 penalty and a reduction in effort. Without the feat, you get the same -2 penalty and no reduction in effort.
Now, the feat description gives one example of a large longsword, which is a category larger than a medium human.
But a greatsword is a size category larger than a medium human too.
And both swords are about 5' long, more or less, they both do 2d6 damage, and both swords require a medium human to wield them with two hands.
The only difference is that one of thes 5' long 2d6 swords is labeled "large" and one is labeled "medium".
Why should one of them be applicable to the feat and the other one is not applicable?
In fact, I think in 3.0 the 2-h weapons were all labeled "large" before they went to the more confusing 3.x version.
But you're right, strictly by RAW, a 5'-long, 2d6 "large" longsword can be monkey gripped while a 5'-long, 2d6 "medium" greatsword cannot.
This to me seems to be a broken rule begging for a houserule to whip it into line with what was probably RAI.
Which is what I had done, and I had totally forgotten this silliness of 3.5 rules.
Thanks for reminding me.
Thats a pretty good list of trades Blake... maybe include DR like a barberian to futher reflect the non mystical fighter. I still stand by those knees hurt... alot... especialy in face (and pride) :p
Ouch, what was your face doing down there by his knees.
Boxers like to cover up, pull their gloves in by their face and duck under their opponent's punches.
The first time they face a kickboxer, or any other hard-style martial artist, they learn very quickly that this is no defense in a sport/combat that uses feet/legs as weapons.
Kickboxers, accordingly, learn very quickly to keep their heads up and away from those legs. As much as they hurt your ribs and abdomen, they hurt those a whole lot less than they hurt your face.
I never said those knees don't hurt.
What I said was, it takes time for the pounding from those knees to wear you down, if you're any kind of fighter yourself.
It takes, IME, less time (about 6 seconds, give or take) for a well-applied sleeper hold to finish a fight from fully healthy to unconscious.
Neithr of which is modeled well by the 3.x/Pathfinder rules to simply apply your unarmed damage once per round, but at least the model misrepresents them both equally, and in a fashion that is mechanically balanced against other combat mechanics.
But again, do as you wish, just be careful of that "win button" or the other players who need 8 rounds to chop up their hill giant won't feel adequate next to the monk who drops his hill giant in 2 rounds (OK, that may be a bit exaggerated, but I think the "win button" effect will be almost that drastic).
Kickboxers, accordingly, learn very quickly to keep their heads up and away from those legs. As much as they hurt your ribs and abdomen, they hurt those a whole lot less than they hurt your face.
Actually it's really easy to feed someone some knees to the face once you get them in a muay thai clinch, especially if they don't have any experience defending against it. But I personally believe that a rear naked choke will take someone out much faster, as you stated, and it's much more lethal (keep that choke on for 30 seconds and homeboy is one dead dude).
I also don't think there needs to be a mechanic for this. The way it's handled now covers it nicely, plus it can be applied to other situations (ground and pound, for example).
|
Kickboxers, accordingly, learn very quickly to keep their heads up and away from those legs. As much as they hurt your ribs and abdomen, they hurt those a whole lot less than they hurt your face.Actually it's really easy to feed someone some knees to the face once you get them in a muay thai clinch, especially if they don't have any experience defending against it. But I personally believe that a rear naked choke will take someone out much faster, as you stated, and it's much more lethal (keep that choke on for 30 seconds and homeboy is one dead dude).
I also don't think there needs to be a mechanic for this. The way it's handled now covers it nicely, plus it can be applied to other situations (ground and pound, for example).
Fair enough about the rules. i suppose you can describe the damage inflicted as any type of manuver and yes a choke is more damaging to the human body just about any martial artist knows this. Was making a (not so) "funny" about that particular experiance from my younger/dumber days. It does bring up a debate I've had with other players before I've yet to see (IMO) a good reflection of different styles of "monk".Not a debate on superior styles mind you, that tends to be up to the individual fighter not style. But I'm pretty sure if you got down to it trying to put the many different styles; jujitsu,the many different karate/kung fu styles, savate, pancrantium, etc. it would be one HUGE freakin book... and probably peeve alot of people off when their favorite style wasn't as bad a$$ as they think it should be.
Fair enough about the rules. i suppose you can describe the damage inflicted as any type of manuver and yes a choke is more damaging to the human body just about any martial artist knows this. Was making a (not so) "funny" about that particular experiance from my younger/dumber days.
Oh, I wasn't trying to criticize anything you said, I was just tossing in my two coppers! But yeah, it would be a hefty book trying to cover all of the various martial art techniques out there... I think the level of abstraction it is at now is pretty nice. Both for the reasons you and others have stated, and also because once you start down that road of simulationism, you find that it stretches on forever.
|
|
I don't think we really need to break it down to hard/soft. It's more a matter of feat selection.
My idea for my character is that he is a monk, only so far as that he prefers to fight with his hands and feet. I want to get away from the sequestered/contemplative monk that has been dominate in my area. I've studied different martial arts down through the years and Muay Thai/Krabi Krabong seemed to be the logical choice.
My choices: Improved grapple (class bonus), Scorpion style (level bonus), and Intimidating Prowess (racial bonus). Human Martial Weapon Proficiency: the Daab (Longsword).
But don't you think that alot of the esoteiric class features don't fit with certain styles, an option of replacing those with more grounded combat features (ie more Chuck Norris than Jet Li)
I've studied a couple of styles and would really prefer to not have all that ki and abundant step and quivering palm.Not all martial arts are spiritual many if not most were developed to kill. Usually by a culture/sub-culture that was prohibited weapons.
I've been looking and reading and thinking, and I simply cannot agree with what DM_Blade said regarding the use of attacks while grappling:
Now, the grapple rules in PF state that once a grapple attempt succeeds, then both attacker and defender gain the "grappled" state. In PF there is no "dominant" grappler or similar concept. Instead it is necessary for one of the parties involved to actively break the grapple.
Just because I started the grapple does not mean I can
In other words, imagine my monk grapples a barbarian. Now if the barbarian in his turn chooses not to do anything - does that mean the grapple gets broken? Certainly not, he needs to actively break the grapple, or if he chose to, he could use the grapple attempts to hurt my monk.
And conversely, since there is no dominance of the grapple, my monk cannot end the grapple just by choosing for it to end, he'd need to actively break the grapple too.
Grappled: A grappled creature is being restrained by another creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to their Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character that attempts to cast a spell must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell’s level) or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.
The Grappled condition clearly states that attacks are possible, albeit one-handed and at a -2 penalty.
This means that it is readily possible for my monk (having grappled the barbarian) to now proceed to use normal attacks on the barbarian. In fact the monk could spend a full-round action to flurry the barbarian.
What is the purpose of grappling then? It is about options. Limiting those of the enemy (cannot move away without breaking a grapple, cannot use two-handed weapons, etc). Additionally it is possible that it is easier to grapple the target and deal damage in that way than using normal attacks. Also it is possible to pin the target and have allies coup de grace the enemy.
Just to weigh in on this with my 2c,
I think allowing "compatability" of Grapple with Iterative Attacks (Attack Equivalence) CAN be quite balanced, independent of whether both opponents are "Grappling Masters" or not.
I *DO* think Grapple should have an 'independent' limitation of once per Turn (bar 'Advanced' Grappling Feats - accelerating Pin Pacing should require even higher level Feats), but this limitation need not impinge on NON-Grapple Attacks. Attack Equivalence also allows Grapples-as-AoO's, which seems a reasonable thing to allow (at least for characters w/ Improved Unarmed/Grapple).
This can actually help NON-Grapple Specialists (to a degree) because (when in Grapples they don't want to be in) they can use a Grapple Attempt to escape, and WHETHER OR NOT THEY SUCCEED, use the rest of their attacks to at least inflict damage on their Grapple Opponent (subject to normal Grapple limitations, i.e. 1h weapons only). The current rules make using "shivs" or daggers in grapples IMPOSSIBLE without essentially conceding the grapple, which seems an un-necessarily harsh discouragement of an appropriate & flavorful combat adaptation.
@Sanakht: If you're going for less the 'traditional' AD&D supernatural-spiritual-power Monk and more just an unarmed/martial arts combatant (ala Muay Tai gladiator), I think the Fighter class and it's Feats + Weapon Training + Armor Training (to Touch/CMD) can end up with an equally good martial arts combatant. Ranger (for 2WF tree independent of high DEX) could be a good multi-class option. You don't get the base damage scaling at high level, but with a high STR + higher BAB + Power Attack + Vital Strike + Critical Feats, the difference may not be that much, and your Maneuvers will probably be about the same if you apply your highest Weapon Training to Close Weapons (including Unarmed).
Ah wait, I've changed my mind slightly.
If you successfully grapple an opponent, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold.
That is pretty obvious.
Where it gets interesting again is here:
Pin: You can give your opponent the pinned condition.
Despite pinning your opponent, you still only have the grappled
condition, but you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC.
A pin is different from maintaining a hold in that it doesn't require a grapple check to maintain - the only way that the pinned target is getting out if I let go, or the pinned enemy escapes from the pin.
Since I'm still in the grappled condition I take penalties to my actions - but I can now proceed to use attacks on the pinned target. Or even, as the rules state, tie up the target.
In terms of flavor that is great - since I can even use a coup de grace on the pinned target in the form a sleeper hold.
A pin is different from maintaining a hold in that it doesn't require a grapple check to maintain - the only way that the pinned target is getting out if I let go, or the pinned enemy escapes from the pin.
I don't think that's true. In Pathfinder Beta, you always need to make a grapple check every round to keep grappling. Full stop.
Ah wait, I've changed my mind slightly.
If you successfully grapple an opponent, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold.That is pretty obvious.
Where it gets interesting again is here:
Pin: You can give your opponent the pinned condition.
Despite pinning your opponent, you still only have the grappled
condition, but you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC.A pin is different from maintaining a hold in that it doesn't require a grapple check to maintain - the only way that the pinned target is getting out if I let go, or the pinned enemy escapes from the pin.
Since I'm still in the grappled condition I take penalties to my actions - but I can now proceed to use attacks on the pinned target. Or even, as the rules state, tie up the target.
In terms of flavor that is great - since I can even use a coup de grace on the pinned target in the form a sleeper hold.
No, you're still grappled, and just because he's pinned doesn't mean he isn't grappled. You will still need to use your standard action to maintain the grapple - if you don't, you're not maintaining the grapple anymore which means you cannot maintain the pin because maintaining the pin requires you to be grappling.
I don't think that's true. In Pathfinder Beta, you always need to make a grapple check every round to keep grappling. Full stop.
No, you're still grappled, and just because he's pinned doesn't mean he isn't grappled. You will still need to use your standard action to maintain the grapple - if you don't, you're not maintaining the grapple anymore which means you cannot maintain the pin because maintaining the pin requires you to be grappling.
But you agree that the victim of a grapple could use attack actions (as stippulated in the "Grappled" condition)?
If the victim of a grapple is able to do attacks, then it means there are additional consequences to grappling that haven't been detailed but follow from the rule description. I'll try to illustrate:
* A grapples B (thus A is the aggressor and B the victim)
* A (the aggressor) must grapple to maintain the hold
* B (the victim) can attack (with penalties), attempt to break the grapple, or participate in the grapple
* If B grapples for any purpose other than breaking the grapple (i.e. to move, or deal damage), then it is grappling A. At this point both A and B count as aggressors (who need to maintain the hold) as well as victims (who are allowed to use attack actions). Side note: B needs to engage in the grapple first, similar to A, in other words the first grapple attempt of B is used to establish the grapple and cannot be used to damage, move or pin the target
* Assuming B successfully grappled A for purposes other than to escape a grapple, then A is a victim of a grapple now and is thus allowed to use attack actions
* If A uses its option to attack it is not maintaining the grapple anymore (thus B becomes the sole aggressor and A the sole victim). In this case B must maintain the grapple if it wants the grapple to continue, otherwise the grappling ends at the point where neither A nor B maintained the grapple
Is this correct? :)
|
|
If the victim of a grapple is able to do attacks, then it means there are additional consequences to grappling that haven't been detailed but follow from the rule description. I'll try to illustrate:
* A grapples B (thus A is the aggressor and B the victim)
* A (the aggressor) must grapple to maintain the hold
* B (the victim) can attack (with penalties), attempt to break the grapple, or participate in the grapple
* If B grapples for any purpose other than breaking the grapple (i.e. to move, or deal damage), then it is grappling A. At this point both A and B count as aggressors (who need to maintain the hold) as well as victims (who are allowed to use attack actions). Side note: B needs to engage in the grapple first, similar to A, in other words the first grapple attempt of B is used to establish the grapple and cannot be used to damage, move or pin the target
* Assuming B successfully grappled A for purposes other than to escape a grapple, then A is a victim of a grapple now and is thus allowed to use attack actions
* If A uses its option to attack it is not maintaining the grapple anymore (thus B becomes the sole aggressor and A the sole victim). In this case B must maintain the grapple if it wants the grapple to continue, otherwise the grappling ends at the point where neither A nor B maintained the grapple
Is this correct? :)
I think so, yes. While maintaining a grapple or pin, you cannot make attacks, but if the person you're grappling tries to grapple you back, you can choose to drop your choke hold in favour of a knife to the ribs. That just leaves the control of the grapple with him and he can pin you now.
I think so, yes. While maintaining a grapple or pin, you cannot make attacks, but if the person you're grappling tries to grapple you back, you can choose to drop your choke hold in favour of a knife to the ribs. That just leaves the control of the grapple with him and he can pin you now.If the victim of a grapple is able to do attacks, then it means there are additional consequences to grappling that haven't been detailed but follow from the rule description. I'll try to illustrate:
* A grapples B (thus A is the aggressor and B the victim)
* A (the aggressor) must grapple to maintain the hold
* B (the victim) can attack (with penalties), attempt to break the grapple, or participate in the grapple
* If B grapples for any purpose other than breaking the grapple (i.e. to move, or deal damage), then it is grappling A. At this point both A and B count as aggressors (who need to maintain the hold) as well as victims (who are allowed to use attack actions). Side note: B needs to engage in the grapple first, similar to A, in other words the first grapple attempt of B is used to establish the grapple and cannot be used to damage, move or pin the target
* Assuming B successfully grappled A for purposes other than to escape a grapple, then A is a victim of a grapple now and is thus allowed to use attack actions
* If A uses its option to attack it is not maintaining the grapple anymore (thus B becomes the sole aggressor and A the sole victim). In this case B must maintain the grapple if it wants the grapple to continue, otherwise the grappling ends at the point where neither A nor B maintained the grapple
Is this correct? :)
What Lorekeeper said is basically true. This was disucssed extensively during the open beta test.
The rules for grapple in the Beta book are incomplete. In fact, you're better off being the guy who gets grappled than being the guy who starts the grapple - whoever starts it cannot do damage on the same turn, but the other guy can (unless his initiative has already gone by, in which case, he'll do the first damage next round).
It is apparent from the rules that Pathfinder had meant to imply a difference between the gappler and the victim. One is grappling, the other is escaping, or trying to fight while grappled, but is not grappling. Or they can both grab each other and both become the grappler. None of which is clear in the book, but the rules don't work unless you apply this reasoning to them.
But ultimately it does not matter, with the rules as presented, whether the guy you are grappling tryies to grapple you back or tries other stuff. You must choose not to maintain your grapple/pin in order to attack, or you must choose not to attack in order to maintain your grapple/pin.
I would say, though it is not evident in the rules, that the grapple only ends when both parties choose not to maintain it - as long as either party has used the "maintain grapple" action in their most recent round, the grapple continues. Once both have chosen not to maintain grapple in their most recent round, they are no longer grappling (and must be separated into their own 5' squares again). Any other ruling becomes strange.
I hope the upcoming rulebook clarifies grappling. They surely saw enough of us hashing all this wierndess in the Beta test to know it needed some rewrite.
Any other ruling becomes strange.
This ruling is pretty strange too.(not saying it doesn't sound correct) And more complicated than it probably needs to be.
The rules for grapple in the Beta book are incomplete. In fact, you're better off being the guy who gets grappled than being the guy who starts the grapple - whoever starts it cannot do damage on the same turn, but the other guy can (unless his initiative has already gone by, in which case, he'll do the first damage next round).
I don't think this is how it works. As far as I can tell, if a giant python is grappling a halfling, that does not mean that the halfling is grappling the python (unlike in 3.5). The halfling would have to make a successful grapple check against the python to begin doing damage or trying to pin.
In other words, I don't think "A & B both have the grappled condition" is equivalent to "A is grappling B and B is graplping A".
The rules for grapple in the Beta book are incomplete. In fact, you're better off being the guy who gets grappled than being the guy who starts the grapple - whoever starts it cannot do damage on the same turn, but the other guy can (unless his initiative has already gone by, in which case, he'll do the first damage next round).I don't think this is how it works. As far as I can tell, if a giant python is grappling a halfling, that does not mean that the halfling is grappling the python (unlike in 3.5). The halfling would have to make a successful grapple check against the python to begin doing damage or trying to pin.
In other words, I don't think "A & B both have the grappled condition" is equivalent to "A is grappling B and B is graplping A".
What you say is logically true, and I agree with you as to how you might interprete the intent of what is written.
However, what is written says:
"As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe"
and
"If successful, both you and the target gain the grappled condition"
So when the python grapples the halfling, they both gain the grappled condition. They are both grappling.
The python might want to constrict and do damage to the halfling, but the ordinary rules of grappling say he cannot because he has already used his standard actoin this round. The text says:
"If you successfully grapple an opponent, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action"
With no more standard actions this round, the python must wait until his next round to hurt the halfling.
However on the halfling's turn he can attempt to break the grapple:
"If you are grappled, you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action"
Or if he doesn't want to break the grapple, he can attempt to make his own standard action grapple check:
"Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions."
If successful, the halfling can move, damage, or pin the python.
(Note: I used the python/halfling example because you did. I believe pythons probably have the Constrict ability that lets them do damage the same round they use their Improved Grab - that ability invalidates some of what I said here. But if we switch it to an Orc grappling with the halfling, then everything I said here is true).
The rules for grapple in the Beta book are incomplete. In fact, you're better off being the guy who gets grappled than being the guy who starts the grapple - whoever starts it cannot do damage on the same turn, but the other guy can (unless his initiative has already gone by, in which case, he'll do the first damage next round).I don't think this is how it works. As far as I can tell, if a giant python is grappling a halfling, that does not mean that the halfling is grappling the python (unlike in 3.5). The halfling would have to make a successful grapple check against the python to begin doing damage or trying to pin.
In other words, I don't think "A & B both have the grappled condition" is equivalent to "A is grappling B and B is graplping A".
Yes, but that's basically what he said.
Python grapples halfling. Halfling stabs python. Python bites halfling instead and grapple is over.
But:
Python grapples halfling. Halfling monk grapples back dealing massive damage. Python bites halfling (grapple not over b/c halfling monk used his last turn to grapple). Halfling attempts to grapple again but fails against gargantuan Python and grapple is over.
Note: I *haven't* tried to make that much sense of the grappling rules (strange huh?), but what he said and what you said can work out to the same thing (and seem to make sense).
Yes, but that's basically what he said.
If you say so, but I suspect I'm just not making myself clear.
Python grapples halfling. Halfling stabs python. Python bites halfling instead and grapple is over.
Agreed.
But:
Python grapples halfling. Halfling monk grapples back dealing massive damage. Python bites halfling (grapple not over b/c halfling monk used his last turn to grapple). Halfling attempts to grapple again but fails against gargantuan Python and grapple is over.
I disagree. Here's how I think it goes in Pathfinder Beta:
Python grapples halfling. Halfling monk can't grapple back for damage, because "Python grapples Halfling" is no longer equivalent to "Halfling grapples Python" in PFRPG Beta. So halfling monk has to get a successful hold on python first. He makes a successful grapple check, and now the python is grappling the halfling and the halfling is grappling the python. Then the python decides to stop grappling and bite instead. So now only the halfling is grappling the python, not vice versa.
(NOTE: I couldn't find a line in the PFRPG Beta that says "you can only grapple a creature up to one size larger". Was that intentionally removed?)
So when the python grapples the halfling, they both gain the grappled condition. They are both grappling.
I can't see anywhere that says "A is grappling B and A and B both have the grappled position" is equivalent to "A is grappling B and B is grappling A". In fact, I don't think they are equivalent any more. Specifically, I don't think "grappled" and "grappling an opponent" are synonyms any more than "disarmed" and "disarming an opopnent" are.
I can't see anywhere that says "A is grappling B and A and B both have the grappled position" is equivalent to "A is grappling B and B is grappling A". In fact, I don't think they are equivalent any more. Specifically, I don't think "grappled" and "grappling an opponent" are synonyms any more than "disarmed" and "disarming an opopnent" are.
Except, when you disarm an opponent, you don't both get the "Disarmed" condition.
However, when you grapple an opponent, you both get the "Grappled" condition. There is no "Grappling" condition to apply to just one of the combatants - they both get the exact same "Grappled" condition.
If successful, both you and the target gain the grappled condition
A grappled creature is being restrained by another creature, trap, or effect
That's in black and white:
If you grapple an opponent, both of you gain the Grappled condition which specifically says both of you are being restrained by another creature.
Furthermore, as a side not, many of the penalties for being "Grappled" make no sense unless if you are holding your foe but he is not holding you back. Such as you cannot move (surely if you grab someone else, you can let go as a free action and move as much as you want - unless he is holding you back). You cannot make attacks of opportunity (again, if you're merely holding someone, why can't you just let go and smack his friend as he runs by? It should be no harder than dropping a sword, which is a free action).
I totally agree with you that this doesn't seem right, that it's mechanically strange, and that it needs some definite revision.
However, these are the Rules as Written, strange as they are.
A grappled creature is being restrained by another creature, trap, or effect
I don't find this the "smoking gun" that you seem to think it is.
I certainly agree that the rules are ambiguous. However, in the case of ambiguity, I tend to value "this interpretation makes sense" over "this interpretation makes no sense".
Furthermore, as a side not, many of the penalties for being "Grappled" make no sense unless if you are holding your foe but he is not holding you back. Such as you cannot move (surely if you grab someone else, you can let go as a free action and move as much as you want - unless he is holding you back). You cannot make attacks of opportunity (again, if you're merely holding someone, why can't you just let go and smack his friend as he runs by? It should be no harder than dropping a sword, which is a free action).
1) It's trivial to move away if you're willing to drop the target you're grappling. It's moving an unwilling target that requires a grapple check.
2) You can't a lot of stuff when it's not your turn (e.g. discontinuing a grapple). That's just a quirk of D&D.
A grappled creature is being restrained by another creature, trap, or effectI don't find this the "smoking gun" that you seem to think it is.
I certainly agree that the rules are ambiguous. However, in the case of ambiguity, I tend to value "this interpretation makes sense" over "this interpretation makes no sense".
Me too. I was not arguing that the RAW makes sense. Quite the opposite. Trying to show that the RAW doesn't make sense.
Yet it is still the RAW, like it or not. And it is quite a smoking gun after all. Black and white, in print, for all to see.
Me too. I was not arguing that the RAW makes sense. Quite the opposite. Trying to show that the RAW doesn't make sense.
You're trying too hard to "prove" a contradiction that doesn't really exist; the rules aren't specific enough to contradict each other!
Certainly we can both agree that the rules need cleaning up.
I sure am glad they cleaned up the grappling rules and changed them so that everyone can understand them clearly.
Oh wait...
Deadliest elephant killing machine ever...
But I'm deadlier!
Number twelve.