|
Okay, a question came up in our game last night about grapple. First, let's take a look at the text:
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).
Okay, we gots no problem with that part. ;)
Here's were we ran into a hiccup...
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. See the grappled condition for additional details. If you are pinned, your actions are very limited. See the pinned condition in Conditions for additional details.
So, our situation...
We have monsters grapple a few of the party members. One is a Monk, the other a fighter-type.
If the Monk is grappled, can he use Flurry of Blows against his grappler? Can the Fighter make an attack with a bastard sword (he has the exotic weapon feat)?
Can they attack outside the grapple? (I am sure the answer is yes to this, but I want to make sure.)
Okay, a question came up in our game last night about grapple. First, let's take a look at the text:
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).Okay, we gots no problem with that part. ;)
Here's were we ran into a hiccup...
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. See the grappled condition for additional details. If you are pinned, your actions are very limited. See the pinned condition in Conditions for additional details.So, our situation...
We have monsters grapple a few of the party members. One is a Monk, the other a fighter-type.
If the Monk is grappled, can he use Flurry of Blows against his grappler? Can the Fighter make an attack with a bastard sword (he has the exotic weapon feat)?
Can they attack outside the grapple? (I am sure the answer is yes to this, but I want to make sure.)
1)Yes the monk can flurry, since it requires no hands to use (let alone one hand) His hands are occupied dealing with being grappled so he can kick, or knee or whatever else you wish.
2) The fighter can attack with the bastard sword but only one handed.3) If the thing outside the grapple is within their reach, yes they can attack it, but they cannot move unless they succeed on a grapple check to either break free or to move the grappled foe.
|
I agree with 2) and 3), but I don't think you can flurry while grappled. A flurry of blows requires a full attack, and the quoted text says "make AN attack". Not really solid ground, but that's what I see.
In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform.
While it does say that monks can make unarmed attacks with various body parts at no penalty, the quoted section of the rules above seem to imply that your freedom of movement is restricted (can't do anything that takes both hands), so in my opinion, a grappled monk can make a single unarmed attack ("AN attack"), not a flurry, but he can do so even if one or both hands are full (kick, headbutt, knee, whatever).
I agree with 2) and 3), but I don't think you can flurry while grappled. A flurry of blows requires a full attack, and the quoted text says "make AN attack". Not really solid ground, but that's what I see.In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform.While it does say that monks can make unarmed attacks with various body parts at no penalty, the quoted section of the rules above seem to imply that your freedom of movement is restricted (can't do anything that takes both hands), so in my opinion, a grappled monk can make a single unarmed attack ("AN attack"), not a flurry, but he can do so even if one or both hands are full (kick, headbutt, knee, whatever).
I concur.
I agree with 2) and 3), but I don't think you can flurry while grappled. A flurry of blows requires a full attack, and the quoted text says "make AN attack". Not really solid ground, but that's what I see.In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform.While it does say that monks can make unarmed attacks with various body parts at no penalty, the quoted section of the rules above seem to imply that your freedom of movement is restricted (can't do anything that takes both hands), so in my opinion, a grappled monk can make a single unarmed attack ("AN attack"), not a flurry, but he can do so even if one or both hands are full (kick, headbutt, knee, whatever).
I always read it to imply humanoids need their hands to deal with a grapple, especially since it does not limit actions, just what and where those actions can be done with.
For instance:
" Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll."
So the reason you can only attack with a light or onehanded weapon is your other hand is fending off the grapple while you try to attack.
And while it says you can make an attack with a onehanded or light weapon, no where does it say you can make ONLY one attack, or only take an attack action. If it said you are limited to a standard action, or something like that, fine, but it doesnt, therefore a full attack action like flurry is possible, just cant be done with both hands.
Edit:
"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 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 who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.
A grappled creature cannot use Stealth to hide from the creature grappling it, even if a special ability, such as hide in plain sight, would normally allow it to do so. If a grappled creature becomes invisible, through a spell or other ability, it gains a +2 circumstance bonus on its CMD to avoid being grappled, but receives no other benefit.
"
No where in this grappled condition does it say you cannot take a full round action that does not require 2 hands. For instance, a wizard could cast a summon spell, why cant a fighter take a full attack with a light weapon or a monk flurry?
Strange, I always assumed you could not take fullround actions while grappled (so, no flurry).
In my opinion...
We have monsters grapple a few of the party members. One is a Monk, the other a fighter-type.
If the Monk is grappled, can he use Flurry of Blows against his grappler? Can the Fighter make an attack with a bastard sword (he has the exotic weapon feat)?
Can they attack outside the grapple? (I am sure the answer is yes to this, but I want to make sure.)
Yes, yes, and yes.
I think the folks focusing on the words "make an attack" are interpreting the word "an" a little too specifically. With a whip "you don't threaten the area into which you can make an attack" -- does that mean you do threaten an area if you can make multiple attacks into it? (Answer: No.)
Strange, I always assumed you could not take fullround actions while grappled (so, no flurry).
3.5 had a much more specific list of things you could and couldnt do while grappled.
Pathfinder does not have the same list, it just includes a few restrictions. You still threaten, you dont need to take a full round action to retrieve spell components, there are lots of differences.
I just don't understand how a guy can only TRY to get out from the grapple once per round but can make all his attacks. I really thought that when u were in a grapple u could only do a standard action.
I just don't understand how a guy can only TRY to get out from the grapple once per round but can make all his attacks. I really thought that when u were in a grapple u could only do a standard action.
Trying to break a grapple is a standard action. Thus only one per round. You could then make a move action of some sort within the limits of grapple. A full attack is a full round action. This is how the turn works in terms of actions. It takes longer to break a grapple then it does to throw a punch, just look mixed martial arts contests.
|
|
In response to some of the posts, which is some of the same things we discussed at the table, one of my players (effectively) said...
"Why would anyone be stupid enough to Break or Escape a grapple, when something could just attack a couple times and kill the grappler? Or, in the case of the monk, make three attacks in a round and just kill thing thing that grapples him?"
(In the player's defense that exact thing occurred in game. Monk got grappled. Monk said screw escape/break. I spend the Ki point for an extra attack, hit three times with flurry...and killed it. Problem solved.)
It seems that allowing anything more than a Standard Action (across the board) seems to go against the spirit of the set-up for grapples?
Just a thought. :)
In response to some of the posts, which is some of the same things we discussed at the table, one of my players (effectively) said...
"Why would anyone be stupid enough to Break or Escape a grapple, when something could just attack a couple times and kill the grappler? Or, in the case of the monk, make three attacks in a round and just kill thing thing that grapples him?"
(In the player's defense that exact thing occurred in game. Monk got grappled. Monk said screw escape/break. I spend the Ki point for an extra attack, hit three times with flurry...and killed it. Problem solved.)
It seems that allowing anything more than a Standard Action (across the board) seems to go against the spirit of the set-up for grapples?
Just a thought. :)
Agreed. Very much agreed actually. Actually, the grapled guys have a serious advantage on hitting, and I gotta add that if I am a grapler, I would NEVER use an action to deal damage, I would just punch the f&##er to a pulp, with his reduced AC.
Actually, I just re-read the Rules on this, and I gotta say, they are fallible. When you are the grappler u suffer quite a lot.
But, when you are the graplee, you can make all your attacks! While the guy that started the graple can only damage you once as part of his Standard action to hold on to you.
I knew something was wrong.
Isn't it just odd no one noticed this before? There must be something wrong there.
so here is the skinny. Grappling is a combat tactic, like fighting defensively. Sometimes its a good idea, like when you are stronger than your opponent, and he happens to be a weak-caster type. Other times is a bad idea, like when your are facing off against a halfling rogue with a dagger, weapon finesse, and agile maneuvers. Monks tend to have a lot of advantages in grappling, especially with their bonus feats.
As for multiple attacks lets look at the text again, with different emphasis :
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.
Grappling just imposes the grappled condition on you and your opponent, and limits what you both can do effectively, such as cast spells or use two hands.
The thing is mate, the guy that started the grapple, normally wants to keep grapling and must make an standard action to do so, but the skinny monk just says, "Nah, I'm not breaking up the grapple with this giant behemoth, I'm just gonna flurry him to dust"
Yes, most of those guys are pretty good at grapling, but the fact remains that they are not really good at grapling, they are good at being grapled, which makes no sense whatsoever.
I believe this is a mistake, and they must errata that soon, cause if u can't even move, how could u make a fullround action? And besides it's just funny to see the monk standing in front of the giant monster and praying "grab me, Grab me!"
Ahhhh, I see the confusion. From my reading of the rules, it seems to me that both the grappler and grapplee are limited to standard actions and not full-attack actions. Thus, the successful grappler gets to pin/move/damage, and the grapplee can attempt to escape/reverse/cast/make 1 attack. The RAW seem to allow for a full attack, but that would be ridiculous, as the grappler has to invest in 2 feats before he can make 2 grapple attempts in a round. I think they intended for it to be any action that would be a standard action to allow for victims of grappling to do things like cast spells/use powers while grappled.
That said, if you can pin the opponent, you don't have to worry about the casting or attacking etc. That and your opponent is then flatfooted.
Ahhhh, I see the confusion. From my reading of the rules, it seems to me that both the grappler and grapplee are limited to standard actions and not full-attack actions. Thus, the successful grappler gets to pin/move/damage, and the grapplee can attempt to escape/reverse/cast/make 1 attack. The RAW seem to allow for a full attack, but that would be ridiculous, as the grappler has to invest in 2 feats before he can make 2 grapple attempts in a round. I think they intended for it to be any action that would be a standard action to allow for victims of grappling to do things like cast spells/use powers while grappled.
That said, if you can pin the opponent, you don't have to worry about the casting or attacking etc. That and your opponent is then flatfooted.
I agree. I will keep both of them restricted to a standard action in my game.
|
|
I agree. I will keep both of them restricted to a standard action in my game.
Agreed.
In the end, after trying grapples both ways (within the same combat), the table came to the conclusion that only standard actions (attacks) were possible, and full-round actions were simply out of spirit with the text and set-up of grapple.
So that's how we'll do them from now on.
Now, the use of the bastard sword (as mentioned from my first post) is also in my, "wth, really?" file, but I am cool with letting that dog lie. That's more of a, "that's kinda goofy to let be used in a grapple since it's four feet of steel... ;)
I'm inclined to believe that if the writer wanted the condition to allow only standard actions it would have been written that way.
I also don't find it that unbalanced that you can make a full attack while grappled but must spend a standard action to maintain a grapple if you're the one who initiated the grapple. The reason I feel this way is because grappling someone is a means to an end and that second successful grapple check moves you into a situation where your opponents actions are extremely limited.
In games I've played it's been grappling and then pinning that's caused issues, not full attack actions to defend oneself, and Greater Grapple will let someone grapple and pin before someone even gets the chance to defend.
I'm inclined to believe that if the writer wanted the condition to allow only standard actions it would have been written that way.
I also don't find it that unbalanced that you can make a full attack while grappled but must spend a standard action to maintain a grapple if you're the one who initiated the grapple. The reason I feel this way is because grappling someone is a means to an end and that second successful grapple check moves you into a situation where your opponents actions are extremely limited.
In games I've played it's been grappling and then pinning that's caused issues, not full attack actions to defend oneself, and Greater Grapple will let someone grapple and pin before someone even gets the chance to defend.
What is the point in grappling if it puts you at a disadvantage. It just seems illogical to me. If I win the grapple I should have the advantage.
What is the point in grappling if it puts you at a disadvantage. It just seems illogical to me. If I win the grapple I should have the advantage.
In mixed martial arts grappling itself is rarely an advantageous position. You grapple to put yourself into a situation that lets you move to a position of advantage (such as a pin for instance).
Now you may agree with what I said above or you may not but the rules appear to be written using that logic none the less.
When you grapple someone both you and the person you grapple gain the exact same condition; grappled. This is a negative condition and the only advantage the grappler has over the target is that the grappler can end this condition at any time with a free action. The target though has his own advantage in that he's not attempting to maintain the grapple and therefore doesn't have to sink a standard action every round.
That said the first thing the initiator should do is pin. You have to maintain anyway so you spend that first standard action to pin.
All of that said.
Let me ask you. Why should one grapple check effectively put the target at a condition that is worse then being staggered? Because that's what you're saying. Staggered but you can't move and you have extra penalties on top of it.
What is the point in grappling if it puts you at a disadvantage. It just seems illogical to me. If I win the grapple I should have the advantage.In mixed martial arts grappling itself is rarely an advantageous position. You grapple to put yourself into a situation that lets you move to a position of advantage (such as a pin for instance).
Now you may agree with what I said above or you may not but the rules appear to be written using that logic none the less.
When you grapple someone both you and the person you grapple gain the exact same condition; grappled. This is a negative condition and the only advantage the grappler has over the target is that the grappler can end this condition at any time with a free action. The target though has his own advantage in that he's not attempting to maintain the grapple and therefore doesn't have to sink a standard action every round.
That said the first thing the initiator should do is pin. You have to maintain anyway so you spend that first standard action to pin.
All of that said.
Let me ask you. Why should one grapple check effectively put the target at a condition that is worse then being staggered? Because that's what you're saying. Staggered but you can't move and you have extra penalties on top of it.
Staggered is worse than grappled, not better. I can cast a spell while grappled. If I try it while staggered I pass out. Grappling should be even at worse since many monsters dont go for a pin. They just want to keep grappling to do extra damage. Constrict abilities are an examples of this.
Staggered is worse than grappled, not better. I can cast a spell while grappled. If I try it while staggered I pass out. Grappling should be even at worse since many monsters dont go for a pin. They just want to keep grappling to do extra damage. Constrict abilities are an examples of this.
What is the point in grappling if it puts you at a disadvantage. It just seems illogical to me. If I win the grapple I should have the advantage.In mixed martial arts grappling itself is rarely an advantageous position. You grapple to put yourself into a situation that lets you move to a position of advantage (such as a pin for instance).
Now you may agree with what I said above or you may not but the rules appear to be written using that logic none the less.
When you grapple someone both you and the person you grapple gain the exact same condition; grappled. This is a negative condition and the only advantage the grappler has over the target is that the grappler can end this condition at any time with a free action. The target though has his own advantage in that he's not attempting to maintain the grapple and therefore doesn't have to sink a standard action every round.
That said the first thing the initiator should do is pin. You have to maintain anyway so you spend that first standard action to pin.
All of that said.
Let me ask you. Why should one grapple check effectively put the target at a condition that is worse then being staggered? Because that's what you're saying. Staggered but you can't move and you have extra penalties on top of it.
You can cast a spell while grappled but it is more difficult, you can full attack, but only with one handed weapons and at a penalty. Grappling is a tactical thing. You do not try to grapple a karate master (monk) or a guy bigger then you. You grapple when you have a good chance of being able to pin. Someone tries to break a grapple if they are worried about getting pinned, or tied up for that matter. If you just grapple you arent doing much, the real penalty for being the graplee comes at the second attempt by the grappler. Which makes sense in terms of the real world, its not easy to grapple someone who is well trained.
What is the point in grappling if it puts you at a disadvantage. It just seems illogical to me. If I win the grapple I should have the advantage.The primary point of grappling is to impede movement.
The lion chasing down an elk grapples so the elk stops running away and can be eaten. The cop grapples a shoplifter so he can arrest him. The gang member grapples someone so that other thug can beat him up.
Being able to reducing targets speed to 0 is an advantage and a big one. Getting a +5 on your grapple check to pin the target if it doesn't break is also a big advantage.
If grappling reduced the target to a single standard action they have a key word for that staggered. They use that word for a reason.
Staggered does more than that, and saying grappled=staggered is hyperbole.
Edit: I will think on it a bit.
Staggered does more than that, and saying grappled=staggered is hyperbole.
No, staggered does not do more then that and if you add the single action effect to being grappled then yes, grappled does equal staggered. These are the house rules being proposed in this thread because some people are assuming that the developers left this out.
Staggered: A staggered creature may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can he take full-round actions). A staggered creature can still take swift and immediate actions. A creature with nonlethal damage exactly equal to its current hit points gains the staggered condition.
All you're thinking of is the fact that being at zero hit points causes the staggered effect. The fact that you take another point of damage when acting is part of the condition of being at 0 hit points not part of the condition of being staggered.
Aside from that.. that's it.
That's staggered. Nothing more nothing less.
You all keep saying things about MMA, but I've rarelly seen anything like several punchs in a guy who has already PERFORMED the grapple, it makes no sense.
I don't see a Dragon grapling a monk and the monk going all kiai on him, sorry, It makes no sense. It's in no way advantageous to grapple someone unles you have the Greater Graple feat, and still, it would come to ridiculous stuff, such as if I don't connect the pin, I release, just to try again on the next round, and that's lame.
Besides, if u read the stuff said by the makers of PF since the beggining about graple, is that they would fix the problem of several attacks during the graple, and they kinda did, they just forgot to put 2 or 3 words on the text, and that's the way most of us see it.
Staggered does more than that, and saying grappled=staggered is hyperbole.
No, staggered does not do more then that and if you add the single action effect to being grappled then yes, grappled does equal staggered. These are the house rules being proposed in this thread because some people are assuming that the developers left this out.
Staggered: A staggered creature may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can he take full-round actions). A staggered creature can still take swift and immediate actions. A creature with nonlethal damage exactly equal to its current hit points gains the staggered condition.All you're thinking of is the fact that being at zero hit points causes the staggered effect. The fact that you take another point of damage when acting is part of the condition of being at 0 hit points not part of the condition of being staggered.
Aside from that.. that's it.
That's staggered. Nothing more nothing less.
A sorcerer could cast a metamagiced spell. That is a full-round action.
You all keep saying things about MMA, but I've rarelly seen anything like several punchs in a guy who has already PERFORMED the grapple, it makes no sense.
Here we'll just have to disagree I suppose. I see mma fighters throw punches when they're grabbed pretty often. More often though I see them attempting to escape so they don't get put in a worse position.
I don't see a Dragon grapling a monk and the monk going all kiai on him, sorry, It makes no sense. It's in no way advantageous to grapple someone unles you have the Greater Graple feat, and still, it would come to ridiculous stuff, such as if I don't connect the pin, I release, just to try again on the next round, and that's lame.
Aside from preventing someone from moving (which alone is a huge advantage) you're right, there's no other real advantage to grappling someone before you pin. As to the dragon analogy I don't see this as unrealistic at all, if someone grapples you (not pins you, but grapples you) you should do everything you can to get out of that grapple before it does move to a pin and you're not going to beat a dragons grapple check most of the time so the tactical thing to do is probably kick, bite, scratch, and scream (well you get my point).
Besides, if u read the stuff said by the makers of PF since the beggining about graple, is that they would fix the problem of several attacks during the graple, and they kinda did, they just forgot to put 2 or 3 words on the text, and that's the way most of us see it.
Sorry I came to the game late and have no idea what you're talking about. If you link it then I'd consider the writers intentions. If not I'm going to keep assuming that what they wrote is what they intended until this couple lines of forgotten text shows up in an errata.
A sorcerer could cast a metamagiced spell. That is a full-round action.
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. See the grappled condition for additional details. If you are pinned, your actions are very limited. See the pinned condition in Conditions for additional details.
Emphasis on what I think are the key words to this whole argument. Note that it does not say any standard action nor does it imply that an attack action is meant to say only attack actions and no full attack actions (note that it says such as meaning the writer is giving examples).
I could easily substitute such as pwn the noob grappler with your flurry of blows and it would still make sense.
If anything, the argument for a metamagicked spell or a full round spell is an argument for full attack actions and not against, including full round attacks.
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. See the grappled condition for additional details. If you are pinned, your actions are very limited. See the pinned condition in Conditions for additional details.
AN as long as I know is one, in this case, right?
AN as long as I know is one, in this case, right?
Again... such as. You can't pull 'an' out of a sentence like that and not consider the context it's in. Well I guess you can but don't do it and expect to convince me of anything.
Again... such as. You can't pull 'an' out of a sentence like that and not consider the context it's in. Well I guess you can but don't do it and expect to convince me of anything.AN as long as I know is one, in this case, right?
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, actually.
I'm trying to understand why you feel this is the way u say it is, since it's a bad maneuver this way. And there should be no such thing as a bad maneuver.Dificult? Yes.
But one that put u at a DISAVANTAGE whe you SUCEED in it, its a bit of a stretch is it not?
What is the point in grappling if it puts you at a disadvantage. It just seems illogical to me. If I win the grapple I should have the advantage.
I don't have a problem with grabbing a rabid wolverine being a poor combat decision. :-)
But I do sort of miss the 3.5 version of grapple where you needed to succeed on a grapple check in order to do much of anything. ("Must...reach...my...knife..." rather than "I'm being grappled? I draw my knife. Yawn.")
The assumption here is that the pin is the goal. Many monster are just happy with a grapple since they can rake or constrict. No need to even take it any further, and monster grab/grapple more than players do. Even the pinner loses his dex to AC. Unless it's a spellcaster it may be better to just maintain the grapple without going for a pin.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, actually.
I'm trying to understand why you feel this is the way u say it is, since it's a bad maneuver this way. And there should be no such thing as a bad maneuver.
Dificult? Yes.
But one that put u at a DISAVANTAGE whe you SUCEED in it, its a bit of a stretch is it not?
This isn't about how I feel but rather how I interpret the way it's written. If you can show me an official view point to the contrary or educate me on something I'm not grasping about the english language then I'll change my interpretation.
As to rather or not it's a bad maneuver that's all subjective. I can find many reasons to grapple someone and risk being stabbed with a dagger a few dozen times, among those reasons preventing them from moving and setting them up for a pin would be the top two.
I don't have a problem with grabbing a rabid wolverine being a poor combat decision. :-)But I do sort of miss the 3.5 version of grapple where you needed to succeed on a grapple check in order to do much of anything. ("Must...reach...my...knife..." rather than "I'm being grappled? I draw my knife. Yawn.")
hogarth, talking about needing a check to do anything got me thinking about the "if you are grappled paragraph":
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.
Since you need to make a check to break/reverse a grapple, could the intent have been that a check was needed to "take any action" as well? If so, it isn't clear. I'm not sure, but just a thought.
Yeah, I really don't think I can add anything else either to this conversation. I guess the rules are open to interpretation if others are reading it differently then I am.
However Wrathstrike brought something up I'm curious about now. How exactly does rake work? Do the extra attacks get tacked on to the do damage option under grappling? Obviously you can't maintain a grapple and make a full attack (or even a single attack) so I can't really see any other way for this to work unless you choose not to maintain your grapple and full attack which is a whole other can of worms because it brings up resolution order and rather or not the target is technically still grappled.
Honestly I think the rake rules are unclear. Constrict on the other hand is very precise and I think I'll probably just run rake like that unless someone can clear things up for me.
Yeah, I really don't think I can add anything else either to this conversation. I guess the rules are open to interpretation if others are reading it differently then I am.
However Wrathstrike brought something up I'm curious about now. How exactly does rake work? Do the extra attacks get tacked on to the do damage option under grappling? Obviously you can't maintain a grapple and make a full attack (or even a single attack) so I can't really see any other way for this to work unless you choose not to maintain your grapple and full attack which is a whole other can of worms because it brings up resolution order and rather or not the target is technically still grappled.
Honestly I think the rake rules are unclear. Constrict on the other hand is very precise and I think I'll probably just run rake like that unless someone can clear things up for me.
The rake provide an extra attack after the grapple since they have an attack bonus from the way I read it.
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. See the grappled condition for additional details. If you are pinned, your actions are very limited. See the pinned condition in Conditions for additional details.
In combination with the text before, I read the intent of this rule as
"Instead of using a standard action to break/reverse, you can also use a standard action to take any action that requires..."
As I already stated here...
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 !'
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. See the grappled condition for additional details. If you are pinned, your actions are very limited. See the pinned condition in Conditions for additional details.In combination with the text before, I read the intent of this rule as
"Instead of using a standard action to break/reverse, you can also use a standard action to take any action that requires..."
This. The other interpretation would be STRANGE at least...
As I already stated here...
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 !'
HAHAHAHAHA!
Yeah. Pankratium, Wrestling, Sambo, Aiki-dô, Judo and Jiujutsu would be dead arts by now.
There is also more to the economy of actions to consider here than what the victim of a grapple can do. The grappler spent of full round action grasping the victim, and restricting his movement when he could have been full-attacking. What ge gets from his investment is an opponent who is restricted in what he can respond with. Since they both suffer the same "condition", there is no reason one gets a full attack and the other doesn't. Someone who is the victim of grapple is also trying not to be pinned, so it's not like they have an unimpeeded full action to use against their opponent. If a tendriculus or whatever grabs a fighter, the fighter has to spend something to keep from being hosed in the first round. He could vital strike, however.
This is my ruling in my campaign. It simply adds a single word to the rules.
"Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any standard action that requires only one hand to perform..."
This is my ruling in my campaign. It simply adds a single word to the rules.
"Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any standard action that requires only one hand to perform..."
That seems like the RAW rulling, anyways. It's just not writen like that yet.