Two Grapple Questions


Rules Questions


Scenario #1: Rogue gets grappled by a lizardfolk. Fighter joins the grapple to help save him. A froghemoth pops out of a pond and grabs the rogue at the extent of his reach.

Is the rogue pulled free from the grapple? Does the entire grapple move adjacent to the froghemoth? What if there isn't room?

Scenario #2: Wyvern uses a full attack action, stings the fighter, then bites him, which triggers his grab ability. The wyvern beats the fighter's CMD, and is now grappling the fighter.

What happens to the wyvern's wing attacks? Does the wyvern lose them? Should the wyvern have made his wing attacks before he made his bite?

Scarab Sages

Rake wrote:

Scenario #1: Rogue gets grappled by a lizardfolk. Fighter joins the grapple to help save him. A froghemoth pops out of a pond and grabs the rogue at the extent of his reach.

Is the rogue pulled free from the grapple? Does the entire grapple move adjacent to the froghemoth? What if there isn't room?

Scenario #2: Wyvern uses a full attack action, stings the fighter, then bites him, which triggers his grab ability. The wyvern beats the fighter's CMD, and is now grappling the fighter.

What happens to the wyvern's wing attacks? Does the wyvern lose them? Should the wyvern have made his wing attacks before he made his bite?

#1: This has always been a confusing issue, even with Pathfinder's new rules. Here is how I would rule it:

Step 1: Lizardfolk starts the grapple. LF is now the grappler, Rogue is the grapple.
Step 2: Fighter tries to help the rogue break free with a standard action. He is effectively assisting the rogue, and when the rogue attempts to break free he will receive a +2 to his CMB check.
Step 3: Froghemoth joins the grapple. The lizardfolk is still the controlling grappler, so the froghemoth can either choose to assist the lizardfolk in keeping the rogue grappled (+2 to the lizardfolk's next CMB check to maintain it) or break the rogue free (+2 to the rogue's next CMB check to escape). It seems like the former option would be preferable, though of course the froghemoth may wish the rogue meal for himself and try to break him of the lizard.

It is unfortunate there is not an effective way to do '3-way grappling', but this is as it is.

#2: The wyvern could make use of his wing attacks still. While maintaining a grapple is a standard action, there is nothing that indicates 'grab' ends that creature's turn. As natural weapons can still be used in a grapple just fine, I would rule that the wyvern could continue to attack with his wings even after the grapple has succeeded. It would, in fact, be easier to do so now that the target is grappled and has a -4 penalty to Dexterity (or a -2 penalty to AC).

Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys

asknethys@karuikage.net

Sovereign Court

Nethys wrote:


#2: The wyvern could make use of his wing attacks still. While maintaining a grapple is a standard action, there is nothing that indicates 'grab' ends that creature's turn. As natural weapons can still be used in a grapple just fine, I would rule that the wyvern could continue to attack with his wings even after the grapple has succeeded. It would, in fact, be easier to do so now that the target is grappled and has a -4...

These types of attacks (grab, pounce, etc.) should (don't know if it is official or not) be handled in two phases. First, all the natural weapons are resolved, and if the condition to trigger the grap was met, then you worry about the grab. It is rather silly to specifically arrange the attacks to that they get grabbed first, then all other attacks in the round are made at a bonus.

Would you handle poisons the same way? Say arrange your attack order so that the target would take Dex damage from a first attack then suffer a penatly to AC for the other parts of the multi-attack?

Scarab Sages

Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
Nethys wrote:


#2: The wyvern could make use of his wing attacks still. While maintaining a grapple is a standard action, there is nothing that indicates 'grab' ends that creature's turn. As natural weapons can still be used in a grapple just fine, I would rule that the wyvern could continue to attack with his wings even after the grapple has succeeded. It would, in fact, be easier to do so now that the target is grappled and has a -4...

These types of attacks (grab, pounce, etc.) should (don't know if it is official or not) be handled in two phases. First, all the natural weapons are resolved, and if the condition to trigger the grap was met, then you worry about the grab. It is rather silly to specifically arrange the attacks to that they get grabbed first, then all other attacks in the round are made at a bonus.

Would you handle poisons the same way? Say arrange your attack order so that the target would take Dex damage from a first attack then suffer a penatly to AC for the other parts of the multi-attack?

Why not? I would in fact think some creatures rely on this. Creatures with poison almost certainly use their poison to 'weaken' the creature first thing, before going to town on it.


Rake wrote:

Scenario #1: Rogue gets grappled by a lizardfolk. Fighter joins the grapple to help save him. A froghemoth pops out of a pond and grabs the rogue at the extent of his reach.

Is the rogue pulled free from the grapple? Does the entire grapple move adjacent to the froghemoth? What if there isn't room?

Scenario #2: Wyvern uses a full attack action, stings the fighter, then bites him, which triggers his grab ability. The wyvern beats the fighter's CMD, and is now grappling the fighter.

What happens to the wyvern's wing attacks? Does the wyvern lose them? Should the wyvern have made his wing attacks before he made his bite?

I'm having similar confusion with grapple, if you want to check it out Here. I got some useful advice.

It may or may not be helpful

Sovereign Court

Karui Kage wrote:


Why not? I would in fact think some creatures rely on this. Creatures with poison almost certainly use their poison to 'weaken' the creature first thing, before going to town on it.

It seems like a very "gamey" way to do handle multiple attacks. It's probably completely legit in the rules, I just think the specifically sequencing a series of five attacks during a (theoretical) 6-second combat round would be very munckin-like.

Scarab Sages

Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
Karui Kage wrote:


Why not? I would in fact think some creatures rely on this. Creatures with poison almost certainly use their poison to 'weaken' the creature first thing, before going to town on it.
It seems like a very "gamey" way to do handle multiple attacks. It's probably completely legit in the rules, I just think the specifically sequencing a series of five attacks during a (theoretical) 6-second combat round would be very munckin-like.

In truth, I think it's a very non-gamey way. I would totally expect that, if a creature had an attack that reduced the defender's ability to, well, defend, that he would use it first. If a creature has a bite attack with a poison and two 'slams' or something, I think it would be trained to go with the bite first to weaken the opponent before 'slamming'.

A snake, for example, will poison the target first to weaken it before...well, biting it some more. Ok, bad example, but imagine that snake had ARMS. It's not going to go in swinging first and then bite, it's still going to try to poison whatever it's attacking first thing, then swing. It knows its poison is going to **** you up, so it's going to use it! :)

And in terms of grapple, it makes just as much sense. A creature KNOWS it's easier to hit you if it grapples you, that's why it grapples you in the first place! Why try to hit the dodgy elf when it can scoop it up in its mouth and then tear it to shreds with ease? :)


Okay, so a grab doesn't interrupt a full-attack and a three-way grapple is just an Aid Another.

Sounds reasonable. I'm not 100% sold on the grapple answer, but it is an answer. As an aside, the wyvern's attacks with his wings would not improve; the target's -4 to Dex is offset by the static -2 penalty on the wyvern's attack rolls for being in a grapple.

Scarab Sages

Rake wrote:

Okay, so a grab doesn't interrupt a full-attack and a three-way grapple is just an Aid Another.

Sounds reasonable. I'm not 100% sold on the grapple answer, but it is an answer. As an aside, the wyvern's attacks with his wings would not improve; the target's -4 to Dex is offset by the static -2 penalty on the wyvern's attack rolls for being in a grapple.

Doh, that is true. I always misread the part after the CMB 'except those made to grapple or escape the grapple' as also applying to attack rolls so long as they were to the person you were grappling. Oops. Now I know!

G I JOEEEEE


Rake wrote:

Okay, so a grab doesn't interrupt a full-attack and a three-way grapple is just an Aid Another.

Sounds reasonable. I'm not 100% sold on the grapple answer, but it is an answer. As an aside, the wyvern's attacks with his wings would not improve; the target's -4 to Dex is offset by the static -2 penalty on the wyvern's attack rolls for being in a grapple.

That depends entirely on how the creature choses to conduct the grapple.

If the creature makes the grapple at -20 and only uses the one limb that hit it can continue its full-attack since it is not grappled.

If it in stead choses to do a normal grapple (without the -20) it is infact using all its force and attention on the grapple. It gains the grappled condition itself and cannot do any other attacks through ordinary means.


Karui Kage wrote:
Rake wrote:

Okay, so a grab doesn't interrupt a full-attack and a three-way grapple is just an Aid Another.

Sounds reasonable. I'm not 100% sold on the grapple answer, but it is an answer. As an aside, the wyvern's attacks with his wings would not improve; the target's -4 to Dex is offset by the static -2 penalty on the wyvern's attack rolls for being in a grapple.

Doh, that is true. I always misread the part after the CMB 'except those made to grapple or escape the grapple' as also applying to attack rolls so long as they were to the person you were grappling. Oops. Now I know!

G I JOEEEEE

If the wyvern can attack with its wing it only uses its bite for the grapple (at -20) and therefore does not have the grappled condition.

Scarab Sages

The Grandfather wrote:
Karui Kage wrote:
Rake wrote:

Okay, so a grab doesn't interrupt a full-attack and a three-way grapple is just an Aid Another.

Sounds reasonable. I'm not 100% sold on the grapple answer, but it is an answer. As an aside, the wyvern's attacks with his wings would not improve; the target's -4 to Dex is offset by the static -2 penalty on the wyvern's attack rolls for being in a grapple.

Doh, that is true. I always misread the part after the CMB 'except those made to grapple or escape the grapple' as also applying to attack rolls so long as they were to the person you were grappling. Oops. Now I know!

G I JOEEEEE

If the wyvern can attack with its wing it only uses its bite for the grapple (at -20) and therefore does not have the grappled condition.

In terms of getting a full attack, I would think it only had to take the -20 if it wanted a full attack on a later round. It doesn't have to take a standard action to 'maintain' the grapple on the round it starts it for free with a grab, so it could still get those two wing attacks in on the same round.

On later rounds I agree, if it wants a full attack it needs to take the -20. Similarly, if it wants to avoid the -2 on the round it grapples and later rounds it would also need to take the -20 then.

Sovereign Court

Karui Kage wrote:


A snake, for example, will poison the target first to weaken it before...well, biting it some more. Ok, bad example, but imagine that snake had ARMS. It's not going to go in swinging first and then bite, it's still going to try to poison whatever it's attacking first thing, then swing. It knows its poison is going to **** you up, so it's going to use it! :)

Yes, but those creatures would usually wait a bit for the poison to take effect before eating, chasing, whathaveyou. I'm not saying that they wouldn't use the poison first in a combat, just that realistically (I know, the "r" word is dangerous in these discussions) the poison has to course through the system to take effect, i.e. at least the end of the creature's multi-attack.

Ok, I'm done.


The Grandfather wrote:

If the creature makes the grapple at -20 and only uses the one limb that hit it can continue its full-attack since it is not grappled.

If it in stead choses to do a normal grapple (without the -20) it is infact using all its force and attention on the grapple. It gains the grappled condition itself and cannot do any other attacks through ordinary means.

I actually don't see where this is implied. In subsequent rounds, a grappler must use a standard action to maintain a grapple, but as far as I can tell there is no text that suggests that grab interrupts a full-attack action.

Scarab Sages

Rake wrote:
The Grandfather wrote:

If the creature makes the grapple at -20 and only uses the one limb that hit it can continue its full-attack since it is not grappled.

If it in stead choses to do a normal grapple (without the -20) it is infact using all its force and attention on the grapple. It gains the grappled condition itself and cannot do any other attacks through ordinary means.

I actually don't see where this is implied. In subsequent rounds, a grappler must use a standard action to maintain a grapple, but as far as I can tell there is no text that suggests that grab interrupts a full-attack action.

I agree on this. On subsequent rounds, yes, the grappler will need to spend a Standard Action to maintain the grapple OR take the -20 to their CMB check. On the initial round of grabbing this is not necessary.

Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys

asknethys@karuikage.net


@ Rake and Nethys.

As far as I undestand a Grab monster must choose either to make a normal grapple (as the free action grapple) or do it with the limb/bite/other with which it hit at a -20.

If it does a one limb grapple it is not considered grappled itself. And can basically act normaly (aside from the maintaining of the grapple).

If it conducts a normal non-penalized grapple it immediately becomes grappled.

The real question is: are the attacks in a full-round action simultaneous? The implications of this is that if they are all simultaneous the Grab monster does all its attacks before resolving secondary effects such as grapples, poison etc. In this case it gets to finish its full-round attack but no effects of grapple, poison or anything should kick in until the attacks are all resolved.

If they are not simultaneous the effects of grappled conditions etc. will weaken the creature for subsequent attacks. But upon gaining the grappled condition it can no longer conduct normal attacks that are in conflict with the grapple rules. Normally monsters cannot do a full-round attack while grappled!

Since iterative weapon attacks are not comulative and since there are many instances of an actual sequence being in place for combat I think it is fair to assume that even natural attacks are not simultaneous.

Am I making any sense?

Scarab Sages

The Grandfather wrote:

@ Rake and Nethys.

As far as I undestand a Grab monster must choose either to make a normal grapple (as the free action grapple) or do it with the limb/bite/other with which it hit at a -20.

If it does a one limb grapple it is not considered grappled itself. And can basically act normaly (aside from the maintaining of the grapple).

If it conducts a normal non-penalized grapple it immediately becomes grappled.

The real question is: are the attacks in a full-round action simultaneous? The implications of this is that if they are all simultaneous the Grab monster does all its attacks before resolving secondary effects such as grapples, poison etc. In this case it gets to finish its full-round attack but no effects of grapple, poison or anything should kick in until the attacks are all resolved.

If they are not simultaneous the effects of grappled conditions etc. will weaken the creature for subsequent attacks. But upon gaining the grappled condition it can no longer conduct normal attacks that are in conflict with the grapple rules. Normally monsters cannot do a full-round attack while grappled!

Since iterative weapon attacks are not comulative and since there are many instances of an actual sequence being in place for combat I think it is fair to assume that even natural attacks are not simultaneous.

Am I making any sense?

The only reason to do the -20 thing is to avoid gaining the Grappled condition. It does gain this when it starts the free grapple, but nothing about the condition says that it ends the turn as soon as the target begins grappling, or anything like that. It's easy to say that on subsequent rounds with the whole 'need a standard action to maintain thing', but on the first round? There doesn't seem to be a rule that indicates the creature has to end its turn as soon as it starts grabbing, or needs to take any other actions once it has. Heck, that's one of the benefits of grab. It gets to start the grapple for free, which normally isn't possible.

Sovereign Court

The Grandfather wrote:

The real question is: are the attacks in a full-round action simultaneous? The implications of this is that if they are all simultaneous the Grab monster does all its attacks before resolving secondary effects such as grapples, poison etc. In this case it gets to finish its full-round attack but no effects of grapple, poison or anything should kick in until the attacks are all resolved.

If they are not simultaneous the effects of grappled conditions etc. will weaken the creature for subsequent attacks. But upon gaining the grappled condition it can no longer conduct normal attacks that are in conflict with the grapple rules. Normally monsters cannot do a full-round attack while grappled!

Since iterative weapon attacks are not comulative and since there are many instances of an actual sequence being in place for combat I think it is fair to assume that even natural attacks are not simultaneous.

Am I making any sense?

Thanks for putting into words what I had in my head.


Karui Kage wrote:

...

The only reason to do the -20 thing is to avoid gaining the Grappled condition. It does gain this when it starts the free grapple, but nothing about the condition says that it ends the turn as soon as the target begins grappling, or anything like that. It's easy to say that on subsequent rounds with the whole 'need a standard action to maintain thing', but on the first round? ...

I do not believe I can refrase my last post in a more clear fashion, but it appears we are talking about different things.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
The Grandfather wrote:


If they are not simultaneous the effects of grappled conditions etc. will weaken the creature for subsequent attacks. But upon gaining the grappled condition it can no longer conduct normal attacks that are in conflict with the grapple rules. Normally monsters cannot do a full-round attack while grappled!

Am I making any sense?

Monsters and players can make full-round attacks while grappled.

Having the grappled condition apples a -2 penalty to attack rolls/combat maneuvers(except to grapple or escape a grapple), - 4 penalty to Dex, and can take no action that requires to hands to perform. Nothing in that prohibs a full round attack (unless some part of the action requires two hands.)

In the example given the wyvern would still be able to attack with its remaining limbs (both wings) because neither wing attack requires two hands to complete. Though it would be attacking with a -2 penalty do to having the grappled condition.


Maezer wrote:


Monsters and players can make full-round attacks while grappled.

Having the grappled condition apples a -2 penalty to attack rolls/combat maneuvers(except to grapple or escape a grapple), - 4 penalty to Dex, and can take no action that requires to hands to perform. Nothing in that prohibs a full round attack (unless some part of the action requires two hands.)

In the example given the wyvern would still be able to attack with its remaining limbs (both wings) because neither wing attack requires two hands to complete. Though it would be attacking with a -2 penalty do to having the grappled condition.

In case where hands/claws/pincers are not used to make the attack that of course is true (but only in the round when the grapple is initiated).


The Grandfather wrote:
Maezer wrote:


Monsters and players can make full-round attacks while grappled.

Having the grappled condition apples a -2 penalty to attack rolls/combat maneuvers(except to grapple or escape a grapple), - 4 penalty to Dex, and can take no action that requires to hands to perform. Nothing in that prohibs a full round attack (unless some part of the action requires two hands.)

In the example given the wyvern would still be able to attack with its remaining limbs (both wings) because neither wing attack requires two hands to complete. Though it would be attacking with a -2 penalty do to having the grappled condition.

In case where hands/claws/pincers are not used to make the attack that of course is true (but only in the round when the grapple is initiated).

I truly hope that a grappled character cannot make a full-round attack while grappled - especially the 'grapplee' (the creature that is the subject of the grapple attack, not the one which has the 'upper hand').

This was already mentioned in this thread, and especially in this one.

As RAW, the sentence is a bit misleading: "Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you an take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as casting a spell or making AN attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you." Of course, it doesn't say explicitly 'one attack only', but it seems a good reading of the text.

As RAI, I truly do not believe (hope ???) that a hard maneuver that imply a certain degree of failure and a round when you do not damage your opponent (except for creature with the powerful Grab ability) can allow a creature to mince you in his following round without great efforts.

'I'm Iohannes Felicitus Cena , great grappler and master of Pankratium. I've an astonishing CMB value of +30 while grappling, and now that I've come near you and taken a hold on you, you already know that the next 6 seconds you will yield to my powerful Finishing Move - the SCREW-U'

'Greeting, I'm Ali Marcus Amman the Magnificent. While you are holding me into your powerful arms, great as the greatest logs of the northern forests, let me hit you with my +3 Vorpal Keen Scimitar of Speed for 5 attacks...'

'D'oh !'


The Wraith wrote:
The Grandfather wrote:
Maezer wrote:


Monsters and players can make full-round attacks while grappled.

Having the grappled condition apples a -2 penalty to attack rolls/combat maneuvers(except to grapple or escape a grapple), - 4 penalty to Dex, and can take no action that requires to hands to perform. Nothing in that prohibs a full round attack (unless some part of the action requires two hands.)

In the example given the wyvern would still be able to attack with its remaining limbs (both wings) because neither wing attack requires two hands to complete. Though it would be attacking with a -2 penalty do to having the grappled condition.

In case where hands/claws/pincers are not used to make the attack that of course is true (but only in the round when the grapple is initiated).

I truly hope that a grappled character cannot make a full-round attack while grappled - especially the 'grapplee' (the creature that is the subject of the grapple attack, not the one which has the 'upper hand').

This was already mentioned in this thread, and especially in this one.

As RAW, the sentence is a bit misleading: "Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you an take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as casting a spell or making AN attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you." Of course, it doesn't say explicitly 'one attack only', but it seems a good reading of the text.

As RAI, I truly do not believe (hope ???) that a hard maneuver that imply a certain degree of failure and a round when you do not damage your opponent (except for creature with the powerful Grab ability) can...

The "an" is for grammer only and has no bearing on the number of attacks that can be made. See the below statement from the PRD as an example.

Grappled: A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls..

I know that in 3.5 you could make a full round attack as long as you were wielding a light weapon.

From the SRD
If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses.

Now Pathfinder does not say one way or the other, and I don't see any reason to deny the full attack, as long as a penalty remains.

edit: I beleive the "an" to be for grammar only. I really am not sure though.


wraithstrike wrote:
The Wraith wrote:


I truly hope that a grappled character cannot make a full-round attack while grappled - especially the 'grapplee' (the creature that is the subject of the grapple attack, not the one which has the 'upper hand').

This was already mentioned in this thread, and especially in this one.

As RAW, the sentence is a bit misleading: "Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you an take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as casting a spell or making AN attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you." Of course, it doesn't say explicitly 'one attack only', but it seems a good reading of the text.

As RAI, I truly do not believe (hope ???) that a hard maneuver that imply a certain degree of failure and a round when you do not damage your opponent (except for creature with the powerful

...

I agree with you on that.

I do not think the "an" you bolded is just grammar. I think it is to be taken literally.

As for: "Grappled: A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls." I believe rolls is plural since it can be attempted in subsequent rounds. Thus, more than once.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
The Grandfather wrote:

I do not think the "an" you bolded is just grammar. I think it is to be taken literally.

That is a major rewriting of the rules to take every "An" in the rule book and replace with "one and only one".

wraithstrike wrote:


As RAI, I truly do not believe (hope ???) that a hard maneuver that imply a certain degree of failure and a round when you do not damage your opponent (except for creature with the powerful Grab ability) can allow a creature to mince you in his following round without great efforts.

Grappling is no harder than any other maneuver. And most of the other attack maneuver do not do damage without feats or other special abilites.

It is taking a -2 penalty to all attacks. (More if they dex based attacks) It cannot move (often a substantial advantage). It has a more difficult time (often impossible) time casting spells. If it doesn't escape, you can then make another grapple check

Just because your grabbed on to Ali's ankle or the Wyvern's tail, and made it impossible for them to move, and suffer a penalty to attacks, doesn't mean they cannot attack with their other limbs.


I was always under the impression you could just ignore the person grappling you. So if you're fighting opponent A in melee and opponent B grapples you, you could just keep fighting opponent A normally with all your attacks. The down side, of course, is you are at penalties to hit etc, because of the grappled condition.

Alternately, only being able to attack once/round when grappled seems like an appropriate penalty.

I can't help but think, though, that if you grapple a leopard, it's just gonna go balistic and use all its attacks on you...


Rake wrote:

Scenario #1: Rogue gets grappled by a lizardfolk. Fighter joins the grapple to help save him. A froghemoth pops out of a pond and grabs the rogue at the extent of his reach.

Is the rogue pulled free from the grapple? Does the entire grapple move adjacent to the froghemoth? What if there isn't room?

I'd like to go back to this example. I can see many instances where this would happen. The rogue is in reach of the froghmoth and the lizardman is out of reach. The froghmoth just wants to eat something. Because the rogue is already grappled by the lizardman, what happens? The froghemoth isn't allowed to grapple the rogue?


Gammut wrote:
I'd like to go back to this example. I can see many instances where this would happen. The rogue is in reach of the froghmoth and the lizardman is out of reach. The froghmoth just wants to eat something. Because the rogue is already grappled by the lizardman, what happens? The froghemoth isn't allowed to grapple the rogue?

I'd say if both have managed to maintained their holds on the poor halfling, that each would be given the opportunity to attempt to break the other grapplers hold. In otherwords that poor halfling just found himself playing the part of the rope in a good oldfashion game of "tug-of-war".

Allowing for both of the grappers, on their respective turns, to attempt a break grapple check against the opposing grappler (frogmmoth CMB vs the lizardfolk's CMD, and vice versa).

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Two Grapple Questions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.