Can you use the rake attack when you are being grappled? Or do you have to be the grappler?
The rules make it seem like you have to be the grappler, but anyone who's had to wrassle a cat into a cat carrier knows they can bring those back claws into play at almost any time.
Thanks,
Can you use the rake attack when you are being grappled? Or do you have to be the grappler?
The rules make it seem like you have to be the grappler, but anyone who's had to wrassle a cat into a cat carrier knows they can bring those back claws into play at almost any time.
Thanks,
There was a similar thread about Pounce & Rake, perhaps we can draw a conclusion from it (relevant parts bolded):
Pounce & Rake
Q: How do the Pounce and the Rake ability interact? The Rake description says, that a creature doesn't get to use rake unless it started its turn grappling while pounce says a creature gets to use all of its attacks, including the rake.
Does this mean that a pouncing creature gets its rake attacks as additional attacks without the need of grappling its opponent or does it simply mean that a creature that grapples a foe while pouncing gets to use its rake?
A: There are two times when a rake attack can be used:
-during a grapple
-during a pounce, without needing to grapple first (if the creature can pounce)
The ability to use a rake during a pounce isn't mentioned in the description of "Rake" because some creatures can rake but not pounce (e.g. a behir).
-----------
Furthermore from the rake description: "...gains two additional claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe."
"If you succeed, you break the grapple and can act normally. Alternatively, if you succeed, you can become the grappler, grappling the other creature."
In a grapple you are either the grappler or the grappled creatures.
I would say, the creature must be the grappler to use rake.
You have an excellent point about putting a cat into a car carrier. I've been the subject of many rake attempts in that situation. :-(
"grappled" is a condition ALL parties to a grapple SHARE
(bar creatures not considered grappled themselves, e.g. due to size differential)
there is NO "grappler" / "grappled" differentiation by the rules.
if a rake creature is "grappled" at the beginning of their turn, they can rake.
it doesn't matter who started it.
"grappled" is a condition ALL parties to a grapple SHARE
(bar creatures not considered grappled themselves, e.g. due to size differential)
there is NO "grappler" / "grappled" differentiation by the rules.
if a rake creature is "grappled" at the beginning of their turn, they can rake.
it doesn't matter who started it.
Mmmm. Then why that part from the combat maneuver grappling section of the combat chapter "If you succeed, you break the grapple and can act normally. Alternatively, if you succeed, you can become the grappler, grappling the other creature" ?
"grappled" is a condition ALL parties to a grapple SHARE
(bar creatures not considered grappled themselves, e.g. due to size differential)
there is NO "grappler" / "grappled" differentiation by the rules.
if a rake creature is "grappled" at the beginning of their turn, they can rake.
it doesn't matter who started it.
Please read the final version of the rules on grappling:
"If You Are Grappled: If you are grappled, you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action by making a combat maneuver check (DC equal to your opponent's CMD; this does not provoke an attack of opportunity) or Escape Artist check (with a DC equal to your opponent's CMD). If you succeed, you break the grapple and can act normally. Alternatively, if you succeed, you can become the grappler, grappling the other creature (meaning that the other creature cannot freely release the grapple without making a combat maneuver check, while you can)."
There is a clear distinction now between grappling/being grappled.
EDIT: ninja'd!
Aha, So it has! Great!
But to the original question, both combatants still have the Grappled Condition, and Rake says "...two additional claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe... A monster with the rake ability must begin its turn already grappling to use its rake". So with regards to Rake, I don't think it matters who most recently "initiated" the Grapple: Nothing in Rake references any 'controlling' of the Grapple to distinguish from the "Grappled" state both combatants share. I don't see any problem here, because like you mentioned with the house-cat example, it's common sense to work this way.
I really think having a Named sub-Condition "Grappler"/"Controller" WOULD have been more useful, as well as more clear, because it opens the door in the future for abilities to succintly be able to refer to specific "controller" Condition. As is, you need to say something like "you must be grappling and have the option to release your opponent as a Free Action (and your opponent does not)" or the equivalent. Under the "If you are Grappled" Sub-section, it even uses phrases like "you can become the grappler", but this isn't applied consistently as definitive of sub-Condition (i.e. in the first part of the Grapple section itself, it doesn't say "you become the Grappler and your target is Grappled" after the initial success, or with regards to +5 bonus and additional options for subsequent rounds).
But to the original question, both combatants still have the Grappled Condition, and Rake says "...two additional claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe... A monster with the rake ability must begin its turn already grappling to use its rake". So with regards to Rake, I don't think it matters who most recently "initiated" the Grapple: Nothing in Rake references any 'controlling' of the Grapple to distinguish from the "Grappled" state both combatants share. I don't see any problem here, because like you mentioned with the house-cat example, it's common sense to work this way.
Sounds reasonable to me. So don't try to grapple a tiger (or even worse, a behir) if you don't want to get raked.
I really think having a Named sub-Condition "Grappler"/"Controller" WOULD have been more useful, as well as more clear, because it opens the door in the future for abilities to succintly be able to refer to specific "controller" Condition.
Agreed; I'll add that to the list of mushy language that I wish was cleared up. :-)
Right. It's wierd because the mechanical distinction IS in the rules, and people ARE going to verbally reference "grappler" and "grappler" (or whatever). Going the last 1%, and concretely implementing the relevant terminology as an explicit (sub)Condition seems LESS confusing in the long run for everybody.
I see the current wording as causing many a group to get confused when they *accurately* discern the implied Controller/Controlled sub-conditions, yet will find only a shared Grappled condition in the rules. Calling things out by their names is how (most) people think, and going along with that "convention" (as the rest of the rules DO generally) only seems conducive to smooth game-play and rules arbitration (when questions come up, as they inevitably do).
|
The only point I've seen to who is the grappler and who is the grappled party is that the grappler may release the hold for free and step away. here is the next line which I think you may be missing
Alternatively, if you succeed, you can become the grappler, grappling the other creature (meaning that the other creature cannot freely release the grapple without making a combat maneuver check, while you can).
The while you are grappled section also lists your other options that are almost identical to the grappler's except for these 3; the ability to move the grapple, the ability to end the grapple, and the ability to pin.
Taking this into account and also noting that a rake is always a one limbed attack, it follows that once you are grappled you can make a grapple check to use your attacks. If you succeed you may deal damage for your single strike, plus your additional rake attacks.
Taking this into account and also noting that a rake is always a one limbed attack, it follows that once you are grappled you can make a grapple check to use your attacks. If you succeed you may deal damage for your single strike, plus your additional rake attacks.
Why would you need to make a grapple check in order to attack? It specifically says that if you're grappled, you can make light or one-handed attacks against any creature within reach instead of making a grapple check.
Why would you need to make a grapple check in order to attack? It specifically says that if you're grappled, you can make light or one-handed attacks against any creature within reach instead of making a grapple check.Taking this into account and also noting that a rake is always a one limbed attack, it follows that once you are grappled you can make a grapple check to use your attacks. If you succeed you may deal damage for your single strike, plus your additional rake attacks.
Probably because the Grappler has to make a grapple check to damage the Grapplee. The Grapplee can pound (albeit with a penalty) on the Grappler without needing to make a check.
The description of rake says it can only be used against a grappled foe. And just going by the language if you are the Grappler you have grappled the opponent, if you are the Grapplee you are grappled.
That's why I think you have to have some measure of control (at least according to the rules) to use rake.
Or at least that's what I think my players will argue...
With the current rules, there does appear to be a couple of logical problems. I'll use "controlled" to indicate being grappled and not able to freely end the grapple. I'll use "controller" to indicate the person in the grapple who can freely end the grapple.
If I'm controlled, I can make a full attack (at -2), so long as I only use one hand in the attack. If I'm hasted and have a BAB of +11, I could attack my opponent at +9/+9/+4/-1 with a bastard sword (assuming I have the exotic weapon proficiency), while the controller could make a single CMB check to deal unarmed or short sword damage (but without the -2).
If I'm controlled and succeed at an escape artist check, I can become the controller. (This makes sense if I succeed at the CMB check, but for an escape artist check seems like an oversight.)
If I take control of the grapple, the initiator still gets a +5 bonus on future checks since I didn't break the grapple.
If I have reach with a one handed weapon, while controlled I can attack (at -2) opponents who are not only not in the grapple but aren't even adjacent to it.
I think I like the new rules. It grants a distinction that someone is "winning" but without complete victory (i.e., a pin). However, there does appear to be a few oversights in the rules. Since these rules are notably different than what was in the beta version and never mentioned on the boards, they may have been added late in the process and not had enough play-testing.
A few additions/changes would make the rules much more logical.
- Define controller and controlled as above. (Actually, you probably want two nouns or two adjectives, not one of each.)
- When grappled, you do not threaten any area
- When grappled, you cannot effectively wield a weapon larger than a light weapon
- Escape artist only allows to end the grapple, not to become the controller.
- The bonus to grapple checks when your opponent does not break the grapple only applies if you are the controller and even if your opponent started the grapple
I feel like you would also want to restrict the controlled character from making a full attack, to remove that advantage from being controlled, but I'm having trouble seeing the reason why you wouldn't be able to full attack other than "balance".
|
The bonus to grapple checks when your opponent does not break the grapple only applies if you are the controller and even if your opponent
Though it isn't explicit, it seems very clear to me that this is the intended result of reversing the grapple, since all the stated changes that occur when you take control of the grapple are reversals of the initiator's abilities.