That seems like the RAW rulling, anyways. It's just not writen like that yet.
The RAW is ambiguous.
That seems like the RAW rulling, anyways. It's just not writen like that yet.The RAW is ambiguous.
And that's what this is all about, ya?
But the "AN ATTACK" part is pretty straight forward to me.
I like the 3.5 rules better. The grappling status has less conditions on it, and it's more advantageous for the grappler (except the weird pin scenario where someone gets grappled and then pins the grappler). So many more options, including making a full attack into the grapple (if you have a light weapon available).
But the "AN ATTACK" part is pretty straight forward to me.
Suppose a wizard is grappled and he wants to cast Bull's Strength and Quickened Grease. Would you allow him to do so?
(I agree with the previous poster; I like the 3.5 version of grapple better, although it certainly had its faults.)
That seems like the RAW rulling, anyways. It's just not writen like that yet.The RAW is ambiguous.And that's what this is all about, ya?
But the "AN ATTACK" part is pretty straight forward to me.
"you can take any action" seems pretty straightforward as well.
(I agree with the previous poster; I like the 3.5 version of grapple better, although it certainly had its faults.)
Like 90% of the time grappling totally screwed a spellcaster and left them with zero options.
(I agree with the previous poster; I like the 3.5 version of grapple better, although it certainly had its faults.)Like 90% of the time grappling totally screwed a spellcaster and left them with zero options.
Yup (or at least it would be the case if spellcasters weren't so justifiably paranoid about getting grappled).
>:-D
(I agree with the previous poster; I like the 3.5 version of grapple better, although it certainly had its faults.)Like 90% of the time grappling totally screwed a spellcaster and left them with zero options.Yup (or at least it would be the case if spellcasters weren't so justifiably paranoid about getting grappled).
>:-D
If I'd had a chance to play a wizard in 3.5 I would have kept an encyclopedic number of Grease scrolls on me at all times. Slick Bracers. The whole 9 yards.
|
Ahh good old grapple. One of the biggest culprits of people picking up single sentences within a headered paragraph and bending it in the hopes it will let them do something else...
Xun is correct that you cannot perform a flurry while being grappled. because grappling involves standard actions.
For those unsure lets look at the breakdown of grapple
Grapple is a Combat Maneuver
Performing a Combat Maneuver: When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action.
Grapple requires a standard action to perform.
Grapple: As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options.
Grapple imposes the grappled condition
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.
Grapple imposes this condition onto the target too
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).
The Grappler (person who initiated the grapple) must maintain the grapple each round as a standard action but can move damage pin or tie up his victim if he succeeds.
If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold. If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds. Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple).
The Grappled character (person being grappled) is limited to 3 options as part of his standard action in a grapple; Escape the grapple, Break the grapple, or perform an action that uses only one hand but with the penalties associated with the grapple condition (-4 dex, -2 attacks/CM checks and caster check to cast spells).
If You Are Grappled: 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). 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.
At no point in all of this information does it allow any action within a grapple to be performed outside of a standard action so why would someone who has been the victim of a successful attack be allowed to effectively act normally? simple answer is they cannot and people arguing that the offending sentence doesn't say you cant are simply ignoring all the other rules because the wording is a little ambiguous.
Flurry, Summon monster spells, or metamagic spells from sorcerers are not viable actions to perform in a grapple because they cannot be performed in place of the standard action restricted to you by the grapple.
For those still unsure lets look at the intent of the offending paragraph. Its sole purpose is to allow those characters that have no hope of winning a CMB test against the creature grappling them to at least perform some action against their assailant. without this sentence a weak mage being grappled by an ogre may as well just give up and leave the table until told to come back.
Heres an example encounter with a grapple (a goblin vs. an orge)
Goblin warrior 1
AC 16, t 13, ff 14 (+2 armor, +2 Dex, +1 shield, +1 size)
hp 6
Melee short sword +1 (1d4/19–20)
Base Atk +1; CMB +0; CMD 12
Orge
AC 17, t 8, ff 17 (+4 armor, –1 Dex, +5 natural, –1 size)
hp 30
Melee greatclub +7 (2d8+7)
Base Atk +3; CMB +9; CMD 18
Round 1
The ogre attempts to grapple the goblin
target CMD 12
The ogre succeeds and both gain the grapple condition (-4 dex -2 attacks and -2 CM checks.
the goblin could attempt to escape the grapple but the -4 to Dexterity would need him requiring a natural 20 to succeed so instead he tries to stab the Ogre with his shortsword. He takes a -2 attack penalty due to the grappled condition on this attack.
against Ogres AC of 15 (-3 from Dex due to grapple condition)
The poor goblin actually makes a natural 20 and now wishes he had used that roll to escape but at least he hit the Ogre
confirm critical! (this is one lucky goblin!) damage
Round 2
The Ogre attempts to maintain the grapple gaining a +5 circumstance as this is the second round
target CMD 12. He can now choose to move, damage or pin the goblin as part of this successful maintenance. He chooses to squish the annoying bug and deals unarmed strike damage (1d4) plus strength (note: there is no need to actually roll to hit even if he was using a light or one handed weapon to deal the damage). Since he is the grappler this damage can be either lethal or non-lethal, he chooses lethal.
damage
The goblin gets no action as he is now dying :(
I don't see how the text says being grappled restricts you to a standard action though I do see how other people are seeing that the text implies that that's the case.
That said implied mechanics don't hold up in a rules debate and the text never restricts anyone in a grapple to a standard action in either the If you are grappled text or in the grappled condition text.
If the intent was for either party to be restricted to a standard action it should specifically say so in one of these two places as it does under staggered. The fact that it doesn't means one of two things; this was either a gross oversight on Paizo's part (and I do mean gross because it wasn't missed in one place but in multiple places) or the intent isn't for anyone being grappled to be restricted to a standard action.
Although I don't like it very much balance-wise, I can see why the defender would get multiple attacks. I can see the attacker using both hands and their body to press down and hold the other person as best they can. At the same time, the defender could be making multiple attempts, squirms, and shoves to get free. I don't quite mind the idea of multiple attempts to break free.
The concept of multiple light weapon attacks is a little iffy. Still, the attacker is concentrating on keeping you grappled while you just lay there and stab stab stab stab.
Actually, now that I think on it, the defender is just 1 round from being pinned and possibly murdered by the attacker's friends. I actually am starting to think this ain't such a bad thing and should re-think my ruling on the subject.
AttackMaking an attack is a standard action.
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.
So for me, you can only attack with standard action while grappled ("make an attack" = standard action as it is said in the rules).
On the other hand, "cast a spell" is broad enough to include Summon monster spells or metamagic spells from spontaneous casters (in both cases, you "cast a spell").
AttackMaking an attack is a standard action.
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.
This has been quoted to death and again I'm going to point out that 'cast a spell or make an attack' is proceeded by such as. These are examples of things you can do and by no means an exhaustive list.
Actually I'm going to do better then that. Before it says what you emphasized it says this...
You can take ANY action that requires only one had to perform
So... the question is what actions can you take while grappled that require one hand?
The answer... ANY
So lets look at the available actions.
Action types.
Standard Action
Move Action
Full Round Action
All of these are types of actions. Which of these can we perform? We can't perform a move action because it specifically says elsewhere that's out of the question. How about a Standard Action? Yes, we can perform ANY standard action as long as it requires one hand to perform. How about a Full Round Action? Yes, we can perform ANY Full Round Action as long as it requires one hand to perform.
The fact that maintaining or breaking a grapple is a standard action is irrelevant to this debate.
*edit* And actually you can perform move actions, such as drawing a weapon. You simply aren't allowed to leave your square. If it takes one hand you can do it. That's all I get from the text.
Actually, now that I think on it, the defender is just 1 round from being pinned and possibly murdered by the attacker's friends. I actually am starting to think this ain't such a bad thing and should re-think my ruling on the subject.
This is pretty much my stance on it. Pin is game over. If you've ever DMd for a character that min/maxed grapple and watched your BBEG get destroyed in two rounds because of being grappled then pinned you know what I'm talking about.
The fact that anyone can do this in one round with the feat (at a BAB of only +6!!!!) I don't quite understand.
Picture this.
Round 1
Monk Delays
Wizard Teleports Monk next to the BBEG
Monk Grapples, Monk Pins
Anyway people are free to read it how they want.
Actually, now that I think on it, the defender is just 1 round from being pinned and possibly murdered by the attacker's friends. I actually am starting to think this ain't such a bad thing and should re-think my ruling on the subject.This is pretty much my stance on it. Pin is game over. If you've ever DMd for a character that min/maxed grapple and watched your BBEG get destroyed in two rounds because of being grappled then pinned you know what I'm talking about.
The fact that anyone can do this in one round with the feat (at a BAB of only +6!!!!) I don't quite understand.
Picture this.
Round 1
Monk Delays
Wizard Teleports Monk next to the BBEG
Monk Grapples, Monk PinsAnyway people are free to read it how they want.
or your BBEG has a ring of Freedom of Movement, or it cast on him. Or a rogue friend who now kills the monk because his AC is now 14 and he is denied his dex. I don't see if he can't make reflex saves because he is denied dex, but I thought he was in their somewhere.The thing about most BBEG, they have friends. Especially any that can be grappled.
The thing I see with grappling is that unless you are fighting a single opponent you get pummelled while you do it and make youself a ripe target for everyone.
This is pretty much my stance on it. Pin is game over. If you've ever DMd for a character that min/maxed grapple and watched your BBEG get destroyed in two rounds because of being grappled then pinned you know what I'm talking about.
The fact that anyone can do this in one round with the feat (at a BAB of only +6!!!!) I don't quite understand.
Picture this.
Round 1
Monk Delays
Wizard Teleports Monk next to the BBEG
Monk Grapples, Monk PinsAnyway people are free to read it how they want.
Pinning does not make you helpless, which is what is needed for a coup de grace. For that you need to have an effective dex of 0, such as being paralyzed.
As for take full-round action while grappled, yes the RAW would seem to say that it could be possible (or rather it does nothing to deny it), but I maintain that the RAI only allows for a standard action because your "move action" is being spent defending yourself from the opposing grappler. The description of full round actions further reinforces the point, thusly: *whips out more quote-fu!
Full-Round Action:
A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions and swift actions (see below). See Table: Actions in Combat for a list of full-round actions.Some full-round actions do not allow you to take a 5-foot step.
Some full-round actions can be taken as standard actions, but only in situations when you are limited to performing only a standard action during your round. The descriptions of specific actions detail which actions allow this option.
So 2 things. grappling does not specifically say you can take a full-round action or a full attack, which is a full-round action. It says you can take any action which only require one hand, which admittedly is quite open-ended. A full attack needs only one hand, but it also requires "all of your effort", which is why you are limited to 5 foot steps. Someone in the middle of the grapple is being grabbed at, yanked, pulled, struggling to get off an attack/action. They are being distracted by having to defend against the grapple, and thus are as limited in their actions as someone who has spent a move action. Someone who spends feats in the grapple chain, eventually gets to make 2 grapple actions round but that's after 2 feats!
I would say that someone could go all out on a full attack if they decided to forgo their CMD, and auto-fail the next check. If they have no regard for their defense then I think they could attempt a full-round action under the normal grapple modifiers. This would represent them going all out, but would allow someone who survived that round with them to auto-pin/damage/move.
Edit - on the other hand, someone wrestling you on the ground uses their advantage to minimize their own danger, so maybe you shouldn't get a full attack for ignoring your defense. just because you let someone plant you with your face to the ground doesn't mean you can reach them with your 5 attacks.
While I understand where the points above are coming from I don't concede to any of them and yes I know that any BBEG should have options for dealing with being pinned. My point stands though that being able to pin someone in a single round is a powerful ability.
If a full attack action can not be performed while in the grappled condition it opens up a whole bunch of other questions that are not covered in the rules relating to what exactly you can do while grappled.
For instance can you still take a move action and a standard action such as drawing a dagger and stabbing with it? If you can then why can't you instead do a full attack?
What spells exactly can you cast while grappled? Swift and Standard only?
Can two move actions be performed while being grappled? Note that the grappled condition only says you can not move, it does not say you can not perform move actions (many of which do not require movement).
Why aren't these questions answered when adding 'you can only perform a move or a standard action while grappled' to the grappled condition description would have easily cleared all of this up?
While I understand where the points above are coming from I don't concede to any of them and yes I know that any BBEG should have options for dealing with being pinned. My point stands though that being able to pin someone in a single round is a powerful ability.
If a full attack action can not be performed while in the grappled condition it opens up a whole bunch of other questions that are not covered in the rules relating to what exactly you can do while grappled.
For instance can you still take a move action and a standard action such as drawing a dagger and stabbing with it? If you can then why can't you instead do a full attack?
What spells exactly can you cast while grappled? Swift and Standard only?
Can two move actions be performed while being grappled? Note that the grappled condition only says you can not move, it does not say you can not perform move actions (many of which do not require movement).
Why aren't these questions answered when adding 'you can only perform a move or a standard action while grappled' to the grappled condition description would have easily cleared all of this up?
I don't see any difficulty in handling this with the "you ca only make a standard action" quote. It's pretty easy.
And I would go so far as saying, you cannot perform a Full-round action while grappled, that would be even easier to interpret, and not so restraining.
In the end, its more of a flavor decision than anything else. Allowing a high BAB character to get an extra attack in (at a -2 in addition to the increasing penalties for iterative attacks) doesn't amount to much. If he/she is lucky, they might get a crit or something that turns the combat around. If they get pinned, then the fight changes dramatically. But then that's what monks are good at, locking up opponents.
Mages are doubly screwed, as they have no CMD to speak of and they have to make concentration checks to cast anything (although they got some fun stuff in grapple range, like enervation, or even good old color spray). Who is gonna cast a full round spell in a grapple?
|
|
I don't see how the text says being grappled restricts you to a standard action though I do see how other people are seeing that the text implies that that's the case.
That said implied mechanics don't hold up in a rules debate and the text never restricts anyone in a grapple to a standard action in either the If you are grappled text or in the grappled condition text.
If the intent was for either party to be restricted to a standard action it should specifically say so in one of these two places as it does under staggered. The fact that it doesn't means one of two things; this was either a gross oversight on Paizo's part (and I do mean gross because it wasn't missed in one place but in multiple places) or the intent isn't for anyone being grappled to be restricted to a standard action.
According to your arguments here you are also agreeing that when Pinned you can make a full round action as long as it uses only one hand too!
Pinned: A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions. A pinned creature cannot move and is flat-footed. A pinned character also takes an additional –4 penalty to his Armor Class. A pinned creature is limited in the actions that it can take. A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check. A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component. A pinned character who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level) or lose the spell. Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack.
At no point does it say you cannot perform a full round action (just like grapple doesn't). Its just implied by the act of grappling because grappling is a standard action. The only issue that would cause debate is the fact they can only take verbal or mental actions.
Although I don't like it very much balance-wise, I can see why the defender would get multiple attacks. I can see the attacker using both hands and their body to press down and hold the other person as best they can. At the same time, the defender could be making multiple attempts, squirms, and shoves to get free. I don't quite mind the idea of multiple attempts to break free.
The concept of multiple light weapon attacks is a little iffy. Still, the attacker is concentrating on keeping you grappled while you just lay there and stab stab stab stab.
Actually, now that I think on it, the defender is just 1 round from being pinned and possibly murdered by the attacker's friends. I actually am starting to think this ain't such a bad thing and should re-think my ruling on the subject.
Firstly Pinned doesn't make you helpless so they cant instantly kill you but can pummel you to death without fear of retaliation.
Second Grapple is not always implied towards humanoid creatures. Creatures with tentacles and the Grab ability can hold a creature in a grapple without being grappled themselves. Note that using Grab to hold one person in a grapple while retaining your full round of actions is a CM check at -20 for the creature - its not easy and it will certainly result in failure most of the time so why should a defender have a better chance over creatures specifically designed to grapple multiple opponents?Lastly, while providing an exhaustive list of what can and cannot be done with grapple would be useful, it doesn't make much sense from a book writing point of view. It is needless text when simply saying your actions are restricted while grappling (which is a standard action) does the same job. I agree that perhaps adding in "standard action" to the sentence would clear this argument up completely but at the same time it opens up an argument about move actions. The intent of grapple is that it restricts those involved to a standard action and a move action within the confines of the grapple. a full attack action does not fall within the confines of a grapple.
At no point does it say you cannot perform a full round action (just like grapple doesn't). Its just implied by the act of grappling because grappling is a standard action. The only issue that would cause debate is the fact they can only take verbal or mental actions....
I actually disagree. It really doesn't even seem implied in the RAW. It is truly 100% ambiguous from where I'm sitting.
At no point does it say you cannot perform a full round action (just like grapple doesn't). Its just implied by the act of grappling because grappling is a standard action. The only issue that would cause debate is the fact they can only take verbal or mental actions....
Why should a pinned character be restricted from taking a full round (verbal or mental) action, like a sorcerer using the Still Spell feat (for instance)?
Yeah. The "such as" part really screws up the whole standard action concept.
|
|
At no point does it say you cannot perform a full round action (just like grapple doesn't). Its just implied by the act of grappling because grappling is a standard action. The only issue that would cause debate is the fact they can only take verbal or mental actions....Why should a pinned character be restricted from taking a full round (verbal or mental) action, like a sorcerer using the Still Spell feat (for instance)?
Because he is involved in a grapple and must use the rules of grappling each round he has that condition.
Heres a concept for you: Grappling requires maintaining - If you fail to maintain (read voluntarily release) the grapple, the grapple ends. This maintenance is forced upon you if you are the victim (unless you break it as a standard action). Maintaining a Grapple is a standard action.
A spell with a duration of Concentration requires maintaining - If you fail to maintain the spell, the spell ends. Maintaining a Spell is a standard action.
Now I know this is like comparing apples to pears but its still a precedence within the game that should be considered with regards to similar mechanics, this is the intent of the 3.0 + rules, to simplify mechanics that act in similar ways.
Heres a concept for you: Grappling requires maintaining - If you fail to maintain (read voluntarily release) the grapple, the grapple ends. This maintenance is forced upon you if you are the victim (unless you break it as a standard action). Maintaining a Grapple is a standard action.
I think you're conflating things with 3.5, where grappling was the same for both parties involved. Now there's a "grappler" and a "grapplee", and if you want to go from "grapplee" to "grappler" you need to reverse the grapple first. The "grappler" is the one who has to maintain the grapple with a standard action every round.
Both gain the "Grappled" condition, the only clearly defined difference is that one can end the condition for both parties as a free action, while the other has to "flip the grapple" to do the same.
I guess it depends on your definition of "clearly". To me it's clear that the Move, Damage and Pin actions are only available to the "grappler" and are not available to the "grapplee".
Director of Game Design
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Folks,
The RAW do allow the grappled to make a full attack action, assuming they can do so with only one hand. Since flurry does not require two hands to perform, a monk could flurry.
Grappling is not always the best idea. Grappling a monk is one such example. I think folks need to remember that the grappled condition is not as severe as it once was. You are no longer draped all over the target. It is more like you got a hold on them, typically an arm (hence the restriction). The pinned condition is more of your greco-roman wrestling hold.
Hope that clears it up..
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Both gain the "Grappled" condition, the only clearly defined difference is that one can end the condition for both parties as a free action, while the other has to "flip the grapple" to do the same.
Where in here does it discuss whether you can make a full action or not?
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.
There is a HUGE difference between the Grappled CONDITION and the Grapple MANEUVER. The grapplee isn't necessarily initiating a Grapple MANEUVER at all. Just because you have the Grappled CONDITION doesn't mean you suffer the limiatations of the Grapple MANEUVER.
Grappling is not always the best idea. Grappling a monk is one such example.
LOL.
|
|
Folks,
The RAW do allow the grappled to make a full attack action, assuming they can do so with only one hand. Since flurry does not require two hands to perform, a monk could flurry.
Grappling is not always the best idea. Grappling a monk is one such example. I think folks need to remember that the grappled condition is not as severe as it once was. You are no longer draped all over the target. It is more like you got a hold on them, typically an arm (hence the restriction). The pinned condition is more of your greco-roman wrestling hold.
Hope that clears it up..
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Ok I'll concede on this I guess but could you answer why, by RAW, a monk that initiates a grapple cannot flurry but a monk that is being grappled can? If the intent is to only tie up one hand, unless the monk gains an extra action (or the ability to maintain a grapple as a free action) he cannot ever perform a flurry while grappling.
Given the flavor of a Monk to benefit mostly from Combat Maneuvers it seems rather odd. I could see plenty of scenarios where a monk would lock up an opponent with his arm and unleash a flurry of kicks.
Folks,
The RAW do allow the grappled to make a full attack action, assuming they can do so with only one hand. Since flurry does not require two hands to perform, a monk could flurry.
Grappling is not always the best idea. Grappling a monk is one such example. I think folks need to remember that the grappled condition is not as severe as it once was. You are no longer draped all over the target. It is more like you got a hold on them, typically an arm (hence the restriction). The pinned condition is more of your greco-roman wrestling hold.
Hope that clears it up..
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
thanks
I still, don't get it though. Funny thing is, the guy being grappled can even punch the grapler quite a lot, depending on his BAB, even without Unarmed Strike, since when in the grapled condition u cannot make AoO.
Well, I'll concede cause it is Jason, although I do not agree with it.
On another note, if u move your oponent can he still make a full attack?
Given the flavor of a Monk to benefit mostly from Combat Maneuvers it seems rather odd. I could see plenty of scenarios where a monk would lock up an opponent with his arm and unleash a flurry of kicks.
I could see this too actually but I can't see most people being able to do this.
A custom feat that let you make extra grapple checks solely for the purpose of inflicting extra damage might work. Or a feat that let you maintain a grapple as a swift action (but only maintain) would also work.
On another note, if u move your oponent can he still make a full attack?
I would say yes though I can see why some people would disagree.
My reasoning is that a bull-rush or other form of forced movement does not cost the victim any actions or move and therefore neither should this sort of forced movement.
On another note, if u move your oponent can he still make a full attack?
I would say yes though I can see why some people would disagree.
My reasoning is that a bull-rush or other form of forced movement does not cost the victim any actions or move and therefore neither should this sort of forced movement.
On that we do agree, my friend.
I'd be cool with a feat that gave you your full attack as a grappler for unarmed strikes only - headbutt, knees, elbows, etc. Not sure how to spec it out at the moment, though.
I'd be cool with a feat that gave you your full attack as a grappler for unarmed strikes only - headbutt, knees, elbows, etc. Not sure how to spec it out at the moment, though.
For the grapler? Hummm interesting.
Name Pending
You are so skilled at maintaining a grapple you can do so with far less effort then usual.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Improved Grapple, Improved Unarmed Strike.
Benefit: You can maintain a grapple as a swift action rather then a standard action. While maintaining a grapple in this way you do not get a +5 grapple bonus to subsequent grapple checks nor do you get to move, damage, pin, or tie up your opponent as you usually would.
Normal: Maintaining a grapple is a standard action.
*Edit* Bamf!! Full attack actions while maintaining a grapple!!
I would favor just allowing the grappler to take a full attack as part of their grapple check when choosing to inflict unarmed damage. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander. In fact, that would encourage the victim of grapple to want to reverse the grapple or escape, because otherwise its choice of being on the same footing or being pinned. In all cases, the victim should be encouraged to "grapple-back", otherwise it is little more than a "status condition".
Edit- I think a good feat to include would be one that gives the grappler an AC bonus vs their victim for the purposes of non-grapple attacks. Good grapplers tie up an opponent's attacks on their way to pinning them. It could be like "mobility" for grappling.
I don't think adding more feats is the solution. The way things are now leave some pretty messy stuff for the Grapler, but nothing can be done about it now...
I don't think adding more feats is the solution. The way things are now leave some pretty messy stuff for the Grapler, but nothing can be done about it now...
well like I said, you can just house rule that when doing unarmed damage as part of grapple, the grappler gets access to full attacks too. Now the victim and grappler can duke it out wing-chun style, with no clear advantage. The grappler "looses" one action by starting the grapple, but he is the initiator so that's fair. The victim doesn't have a dramatic reason to "punish" the grappler, he is better off just escaping or reversing so that no Pin happens.
edit- I just realized that the rules give that +5. sigh... ok toss that +5 and make it a penalty to victim's grapple checks. done and done.
edit number 2 - scratch that, if the grappler succeeds in keeping a grapple, he is free to attack in the same way as the victim could, at the grappled penalties. Its more rolling but at least its "fair".
On a similar note.
A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy.
Get my drift?
If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds.
Another thing... when exactly do this +5 apply? When the target can't break, or when he simply doesn't try too? (cause he aparently is flurrying now, hehe)
If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds.Another thing... when exactly do this +5 apply? When the target can't break, or when he simply doesn't try too? (cause he aparently is flurrying now, hehe)
I think that the +5 happens if they are still being grappled on the next "maintenance check". So next round for anyone but a person with greater grapple. Although technically it does say, "subsequent rounds".
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.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. :)
You may, but I've been grappled by things that once they grapple you can do automatic damage; some can poison while grappling you. In that case, there is actually a decision to be made. Am I willing to take the damage/penalties from the non-standard attacks or not? Add to that the fact that you don't have your full dex to your ac against opponents other than the grappler, and I'd say I wouldn't want to be grappled anywhere near a rogue. Also, you're -2 to hit. I mean, its like being sickened, and almost as bad as being stunned. Sure you can act, but...
So, yes, in some cases it is better to wallop the grappler, but in some it totally is not.