I thougth I understood grapple... until Hamatula Strike


Rules Questions


The PF rules state that it is possible to make any actions which require only one hand to perform such as attacking with a "light or one-handed weapon". This always struck me as odd due to the lack of two-handed light weapons, but it was otherwise quite clear. Hence, my confusion when reading the feat "Hamatula Strike" from Cheliax, Empire of Devils, in particular the following part:

"Normal: You can only attack with an unarmed strike,
natural weapon, or light weapon against opponents you
are grappling."

What about one-handed weapons ? Are there any official rulings/clarifications concerning this ?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Thiago Cardozo wrote:
What about one-handed weapons ? Are there any official rulings/clarifications concerning this ?

Both 3.p and 3.5 Grapple only allowed those during a grapple. At no point could you ever attack with a One Handed or Two Handed weapon in grapples.

Liberty's Edge

Page 200:

Quote:


Damage: You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal.

Page 201:

Quote:


If You Are Grappled:
...
Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you.

I would say they just accidentally left out one-handed weapons in Normal part of the Hamatula feat.

Edit: And while all light weapons are one-handed weapons, not all one-handed weapons are light, so it would seem that is the reason why the distinction was provided in the rules.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

When did the Cheliax book come out? In 3.5 you could only use a light weapon in a grapple.

Dark Archive

tejón wrote:
When did the Cheliax book come out? In 3.5 you could only use a light weapon in a grapple.

Less than a month ago, post PFRPG launch.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Then I got nothin'.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Finally, I can grapple someone and hit them with a bastard sword!


tejón wrote:
When did the Cheliax book come out? In 3.5 you could only use a light weapon in a grapple.

My thought as well.

I am sure it is a conversion error. Something left out as an oversight. Cheliax was probably written well before PRPG came out but was just waiting in pipeline.

Dark Archive

tejón wrote:
When did the Cheliax book come out? In 3.5 you could only use a light weapon in a grapple.

Yeah, but that's weaksauce... we break the rules all the time in Cheliax, just because we're so AWESOME!


Asgetrion wrote:
tejón wrote:
When did the Cheliax book come out? In 3.5 you could only use a light weapon in a grapple.
Yeah, but that's weaksauce... we break the rules all the time in Cheliax, just because we're so AWESOME!

I would rather say that your tyranical inclinations have lead you to impose otherwise unseen restrictions upon your citizens ;)

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

stardust wrote:

Page 200: or one-handed weapon.

Page 201: one-handed weapon

I would say they just accidentally left out one-handed weapons in Normal part of the Hamatula feat.

Both of those pages are new for 3.p, since in 3.5 you couldn't use a one handed in grapple.

I suspect if the intent is that they wanted to allow one handed (and it would appear so), that they "forgot" about the change from 3.5 in the Hamatula feat.

This is an errata worthy problem, either in PRPG p200/201 or the Hamatula feat depending on which one is in error.

Post it in the errata thread for PRPG?

Sovereign Court

James Risner wrote:
stardust wrote:

Page 200: or one-handed weapon.

Page 201: one-handed weapon

I would say they just accidentally left out one-handed weapons in Normal part of the Hamatula feat.

Both of those pages are new for 3.p, since in 3.5 you couldn't use a one handed in grapple.

I suspect if the intent is that they wanted to allow one handed (and it would appear so), that they "forgot" about the change from 3.5 in the Hamatula feat.

This is an errata worthy problem, either in PRPG p200/201 or the Hamatula feat depending on which one is in error.

Post it in the errata thread for PRPG?

heh, I assumed that one-handed weapons was the mistake in PRPG and I left it out, you can attack with light, one-handed weapons (just in case a splatbook introduces a two handed light weapon). Even if I learn that it was intentional screw that, I'm not having bastard swords and battleaxes used in grapples.

Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Dissinger wrote:
tejón wrote:
When did the Cheliax book come out? In 3.5 you could only use a light weapon in a grapple.
Less than a month ago, post PFRPG launch.

Actually, I just checked my order history and the Cheliax book was shipped to me on August 1, which is before the PFRPG was released. Thus, the rules for grapple referred to in the Hamatula Strike feat are referring to the 3.5 ruleset.

Hope this helps!

Liberty's Edge

Larry Lichman wrote:
Dissinger wrote:
tejón wrote:
When did the Cheliax book come out? In 3.5 you could only use a light weapon in a grapple.
Less than a month ago, post PFRPG launch.

Actually, I just checked my order history and the Cheliax book was shipped to me on August 1, which is before the PFRPG was released. Thus, the rules for grapple referred to in the Hamatula Strike feat are referring to the 3.5 ruleset.

Hope this helps!

The Cheliax book was supposed to be updated to the PFRPG rules. Like the Qadira book, they were previews for the final release.

Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
stardust wrote:
Larry Lichman wrote:
Dissinger wrote:
tejón wrote:
When did the Cheliax book come out? In 3.5 you could only use a light weapon in a grapple.
Less than a month ago, post PFRPG launch.

Actually, I just checked my order history and the Cheliax book was shipped to me on August 1, which is before the PFRPG was released. Thus, the rules for grapple referred to in the Hamatula Strike feat are referring to the 3.5 ruleset.

Hope this helps!

The Cheliax book was supposed to be updated to the PFRPG rules. Like the Qadira book, they were previews for the final release.

Can you cite a source for this? I can not find anything indicating the Cheliax book was written using the PFRPG rules. There are many mentions of this book being used as a reference for the Council of Thieves AP, but nothing I can find to indicate the book was actually written using the PFRPG as a ruleset.

And, perusing my copy, it seems that it is indeed a 3.5 book.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Larry Lichman wrote:
And, perusing my copy, it seems that it is indeed a 3.5 book.

Um, I'd suggest looking closer. Perhaps at the Traits that list bonuses to the Acrobatics and Stealth skills, or possibly at the NPCs who have listed abilities like "hand of the acolyte" and "weapon training (heavy blades +1)".

Scarab Sages

Perception checks are mentioned on pages 19 and 23, the NPCs in the Persona section are using the Pathfinder RPG rules and include Channel Energy and various skill changes...there's lots that indicates its a Pathfinder RPG book. :)

Liberty's Edge

And I believe the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game logo is on the cover as opposed to the d20 logo. That's another huge hint. :P

Dark Archive

The Grandfather wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
tejón wrote:
When did the Cheliax book come out? In 3.5 you could only use a light weapon in a grapple.
Yeah, but that's weaksauce... we break the rules all the time in Cheliax, just because we're so AWESOME!
I would rather say that your tyranical inclinations have lead you to impose otherwise unseen restrictions upon your citizens ;)

Ah, you're referring to our sacred Asmodean Disciplines, which, as everyone knows, benefit our citizens and strenghten our glorious nation! It is these very rules that have made Cheliax the greatest Empire that has ever exited on Golarion, because we recognise them as the great gift they are and obey them without a question!

I, on the other hand, referred to these so-called "Pathfinderian Rules", which supposedly govern the physics of Golarion and its inhabitants; clearly this is an exaggerated lie, for Chelaxians constantly bend and break them as they will! Which naturally implies that the ancient texts discovered in Mwangi by the Mad Prophet Iason Bullman do not govern or bind Chelaxians the same way they do Andorans, Taldan, Qadirans and the rest of the word. Furthermore, the only rules our supreme nation recognises and obeys -- the Asmodean Disciplines -- must therefore be superior to the texts Bullman claims are as old as our world. Even the most thick-skulled Andoran cutpurse or dim-witted Taldan dandy will surely understand that, right? ;P

Paizo Employee Creative Director

I'm almost positive it's a conversion error. The book may have come out at the same time as the PRPG, but it was written well before that point when the rules were still being tweaked and fiddled with, and the authors didn't have all of the updates and the editors and developers were overworked and rushing.


James Jacobs wrote:

and the editors and developers were overworked and rushing.

Wait, you mean you're not still overworked and rushing? Why not? Get back to work!

:P


Asgetrion wrote:


Ah, you're referring to our sacred Asmodean Disciplines, which, as everyone knows, benefit our citizens and strenghten our glorious nation! It is these very rules that have made Cheliax the greatest Empire that has ever exited on Golarion, because we recognise them as the great gift they are and obey them without a question!

I, on the other hand, referred to these so-called "Pathfinderian Rules", which supposedly govern the physics of Golarion and its inhabitants; clearly this is an exaggerated lie, for Chelaxians constantly bend and break them as they will! Which naturally implies that the ancient texts discovered in Mwangi by the Mad Prophet Iason Bullman do not govern or bind Chelaxians the same way they do Andorans, Taldan, Qadirans and the rest of the word. Furthermore, the only rules our supreme nation recognises and obeys -- the Asmodean Disciplines -- must therefore be superior to the texts Bullman claims are as old as our world. Even the most thick-skulled Andoran cutpurse or dim-witted Taldan dandy will surely understand that, right? ;P

ROTFLMAO


Hey, here's a question about Hamatula Strike I had.

With this feat, you can grapple with a piercing reach weapon. How does _that_ work? Do you move into your opponent's square with the reach weapon? If not, can your opponent damage or try to pin you?

Sczarni

As far as i know grappling doesn´t put both individuals on the same square anymore, and the feat specifically tates that the oponent is impaled on the weapon somehow. So i guess using a reach weapon stops said oponent from attacking you since i don´t think grappled oponents can attack with two handed weapons (which all reach weapons now are)

Grand Lodge

Frerezar wrote:
As far as i know grappling doesn´t put both individuals on the same square anymore, and the feat specifically tates that the oponent is impaled on the weapon somehow. So i guess using a reach weapon stops said oponent from attacking you since i don´t think grappled oponents can attack with two handed weapons (which all reach weapons now are)
PRD wrote:
If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails).

So if you impaled someone with a longspear you would have to move them 5 ft towards you. this would prevent further attacks with your weapon against them but the feat allows you to continue damaging them since they are skewered onto it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quijenoth wrote:
PRD wrote:
If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails).
So if you impaled someone with a longspear you would have to move them 5 ft towards you. this would prevent further attacks with your weapon against them but the feat allows you to continue damaging them since they are skewered onto it.

I am not completely convinced about this. In the feat description it says:

Rules wrote:

Whenever you damage an opponent with a

piercing weapon, you can immediately make a grapple
check; success means the opponent is impaled on your
weapon and you both gain the grappled condition. ...

It does not say explicitly that you "grapple" your opponent; you attack him, make a grapple check, and if successfull both gain the grappled condition. I think one COULD interpret this in a way that you don't have to move your opponent to an adjacent square.

An official ruling on this is required, IMHO.

Grand Lodge

I read the intent of this feat to mean when you stick your piercing weapon into them you deal damage, you then attempt to push the piercing weapon deeper impaling them onto it while moving closer to them (wether the movement is yours or you opponents the fact still remains that the creatures have to be adjacent to each other to effectively maintain the grapple condition (3.5 wording here which used to require entering the opponents space)

Having a creature more than one square away from you in a grapple with you causes alot of problems for a DM that the rules dont cover. for example, the impailed creature cannot do anything in the grapple himself since he cant reach you, without escape artist how is he supposed to escape the condition, can he do so for free by simply moving 5 ft?, In a grapple you cannot use the reach weapon again but you can continue to damage your opponent with it. however you cannot perform any other actions since the creature is out of reach from you.

The movement adjacent to you solves all these sorts of arguments while still giving you the full benefits of the feat as written.


Larry Lichman wrote:

Can you cite a source for this? I can not find anything indicating the Cheliax book was written using the PFRPG rules. There are many mentions of this book being used as a reference for the Council of Thieves AP, but nothing I can find to indicate the book was actually written using the PFRPG as a ruleset.

And, perusing my copy, it seems that it is indeed a 3.5 book.

NPCs in the book have CMB and CMD. Also, the zip file you get the PDF copy in from Paizo is called pathfinderCompanionCheliaxEmpireOfDevilsPFRPGPDF.zip

Note that "PFRPG" in the file name.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quijenoth wrote:

... Having a creature more than one square away from you in a grapple with you causes alot of problems for a DM that the rules dont cover. for example, the impailed creature cannot do anything in the grapple himself since he cant reach you, ...

The creature should still be able to make Sunder attacks against the impaling weapon, shouldn't it?

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / I thougth I understood grapple... until Hamatula Strike All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.