|
Sorry, I'm no rules lawyer. :(
But from what I've read, many creatures with grab are much more effective if they use a free action to release the grapple and attack again. This certainly seems to be the case with the cloaker. I had a few of them in an encounter recently and having them attack, grab, and then hang on until the beginning of the next round, and then (free action) release and start it all again was quite good. (Well, for the cloakers, not the PCs. ;))
Okay, I've read the grappling rules in the core rulebook (199-200), as well as the rules for grab (301) and rake (303) in the Bestiary.
Here's my question: One of my players is a druid that can wildshape into a dire tiger (which has grab and rake). Now, if we assume that he hits and makes a successful grab with, say, the bite, I'm not sure what attacks he can make in subsequent rounds. Grab says that he can either perform the grapple normally (standard action, and both gain the grappled condition). This seems to indicate that he has the option of doing normal bite damage (or other grapple options), but not get any claw attacks or the rake. Grab also gives the option of taking a -20 on the grapple check to avoid having the grappled condition (which seems to indicate to me that he can make a full attack, or at least a rake).
Can anyone clarify the rules in this situation? It's a little confusing.
I don't have my rulesbook on me at the moment so you'll need to double check this.
I would suggest that in subsequent rounds, the druid (or rather, dire tiger) automatically hits with a natural weapon provided he maintains the grapple with a successful grapple check. Since the grapple check allows for an attack with a single weapon (e.g. bite) simply roll damage. The druid ALSO inflict normal rake damage immediately, as per the 'rake' special attack.Thus: 1 bite and 2 rakes for every round in grapple.
I am confident that the 'grab' special quality allows the tiger to initiate a grapple regardless with what body part has struck its foe.
And damage is definately rolled normally regardless.
On a side note, the 'pounce' special attack allows all the dire tigers natural weapons AND both rake attacks to be used in a charge attack. All dire tigers should have this special attack.
Once you have established the grapple, rake gives you 2 claw attacks IN ADDITION to the options available to you normally in a grapple. Damaging your opponent is one of those options. So, maintain the grapple, damage your opponent, make 2 additional claw attacks. No need to catch and release.
From d20pfsrd - Rake:
In addition to the options available to all grapplers, a monster with the rake ability gains two additional claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe.
From d20pfsrd - Grapple:
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).
Damage: You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal.
I had some similar questions a while ago in this thread but never really got a satisfying answer.
I had some similar questions a while ago in this thread but never really got a satisfying answer.
Would you care to reiterate?
Grab says that he can either perform the grapple normally (standard action, and both gain the grappled condition). This seems to indicate that he has the option of doing normal bite damage (or other grapple options), but not get any claw attacks or the rake.
As pointed out, the rake attacks are an extra bonus on top of whatever grapple maneuver he chooses to use (Move, Damage [with claw or bite], or Pin).
This is a complicated set of rules you're dealing with, and i'll do my best to explain how i believe you coordinate the grapple rules with the grab rules and the rake rules.
Here is what rake does, any round in which a creature with rake successfully maintains a grapple, he gains his rake attacks as free actions. These rakes are made at their full bonus and in addition to whatever action you take as part of maintaining the grapple.
Now, if the creature decides to release the grapple and perform a full attack (thus getting a handful of new grab attempts), he would lose his chance to making his rake attacks.
Since this creature also has Grab, however, he has a third option. if the creature already has his victim grabbed, he can take a -20 to his CMB to maintain the grapple, and if he succeeds, his opponent is grappled as normal, but he is not. So he can give up whichever attack is being used to "grapple", but otherwise acts as normal. in this case, I believe the interpretation would be that they get a full attack (minus one appendage that "holds" the victim), and they do not gain the grappled condition themselves.
The only thing that is unclear to me is this. Under this third option (maintaining the "hold" for a -20 penalty) does the creature get his rake? My interpretation is a strong "yes". The wording under the rake rules (Bestiary page 303) reads as such: "…a monster with the rake ability gains two additional claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe." This means that since the victim is still grappled by our creature (even though he himself is not considered grappled), he can make his full attack (minus one appendage to "hold" the victim), and make his additional rake attacks agains the grappled victim.
This seem to be kosher with everyone else's translation? (sorry for the long-windedness)
This was pretty close to what I was thinking. The only thing is, as near as I can tell, even taking the -20 CMB option, maintaining the grapply is still a standard action, which would seem to indicate he would get NO attacks, save the rake (assuming it is an automatic attack whenever a grapple is maintained). If so, it seems the -20 CMB is a pretty lousy option, as all you have left is a move action. Not being grappled is okay, but not that great.
I don't think this is an accurate reading of the rules, actually. The reason you only get the standard action to grapple is because you have the "grappled" condition. When you shed that (by using your grab ability and taking the -20), you regain your full set of actions, with the caveat that the appendage used to "hold" the grappled victim can't be used. For you, maintaining the grapple on this guy is not a standard action.. it's effectively become a free action. Now, actually hitting that grapple check is gonna be difficult (or at least more difficult), but that's the point, right? It becomes far harder to keep that guy under control because you're not focusing solely on it.
The key part of the text is this (Bestiary page 301 under Grab):
"The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent."
This, to me, says that using the grab rules in this manner is a break from the standard grapple rules, which is why they get their regular set of actions in addition to the "hold".
I don't think this is an accurate reading of the rules, actually. The reason you only get the standard action to grapple is because you have the "grappled" condition. When you shed that (by using your grab ability and taking the -20), you regain your full set of actions, with the caveat that the appendage used to "hold" the grappled victim can't be used. For you, maintaining the grapple on this guy is not a standard action.. it's effectively become a free action.
That's quite reasonable, but it doesn't say that anywhere as far as I can see. The bit you quoted from the Bestiary is extremely vague.
My strict reading of the rules is that if you take the -20 penalty on the CMB check, you're just avoiding the following:
- A -4 penalty to Dexterity.
- A -2 penalty on attack rolls (except grapple checks).
- A concentration check when casting a spell.
- The inability to make attacks of opportunity.
I had some similar questions a while ago in this thread but never really got a satisfying answer.Would you care to reiterate?
There's a link to my old thread in my post! :)
That's quite reasonable, but it doesn't say that anywhere as far as I can see. The bit you quoted from the Bestiary is extremely vague.My strict reading of the rules is that if you take the -20 penalty on the CMB check, you're just avoiding the following:
- A -4 penalty to Dexterity.
- A -2 penalty on attack rolls (except grapple checks).
- A concentration check when casting a spell.
- The inability to make attacks of opportunity.
After re-reading it again, with your thoughts in mind, i can definitely see where you're coming from. From a strictly RAW standpoint, it doesn't say anything about the grab changing the type of action necessary to maintain the grapple. This would support what you're saying, and if it is indeed correct, I think it's a poor choice to make in most combat situations. Not useless, but very limiting… i mean, your chances of successfully holding him are very slim.
I have another problem with that interpretation, though. There is a lot of wasted copy in that grab entry if we read it your way. I mean, if we were meant to simply apply the standard grapple rules to the situation, why would Paizo continue to give us very specific instructions on how to handle the damage involved? Wouldn't we just handle the damage like usual grapple damage?
I equated the grapple action with the grappled condition, which it isn't necessarily. It appears to be the other way around, you gain the grappled condition when making a grapple action.
I'll have to keep looking into this.
I have another problem with that interpretation, though. There is a lot of wasted copy in that grab entry if we read it your way.
I agree 110%!
I'm hoping that there will be an errata or a FAQ answer modifying the wording a bit, but I'm not holding my breath.
Okay, after reading over the different passages again, and then looking over the Constrict entry, it appears that all that added language was to narrow down on when to add in constrict damage and when not to.
So it appears (at least to my brain), that when you take the -20 to your CMB using the grab rules, you must still use your standard action to maintain the grapple. The only benefit to taking the -20 were those outlined by Hogarth above. So, it's basically a question of whether you want to be able to stay defensive while you grapple... not whether or not you want to stay fully combat functional while grappling (as i had earlier thought).
Sigh... oh well... it was good to believe the druid could be king again.
Would you care to reiterate?There's a link to my old thread in my post! :)
There's nothing in there to indicate what you are now dissatisfied with involving the questions/answers contained therein. I'd prefer to maintain the grapple discussion within this thread.
Okay, after reading over the different passages again, and then looking over the Constrict entry, it appears that all that added language was to narrow down on when to add in constrict damage and when not to.
So it appears (at least to my brain), that when you take the -20 to your CMB using the grab rules, you must still use your standard action to maintain the grapple. The only benefit to taking the -20 were those outlined by Hogarth above. So, it's basically a question of whether you want to be able to stay defensive while you grapple... not whether or not you want to stay fully combat functional while grappling (as i had earlier thought).
Sigh... oh well... it was good to believe the druid could be king again.
I actually agree with you -- I think the intent was probably to keep Grab working mostly the same as 3.5's Improved Grab (and so grappling at -20 wouldn't cost you an action). I just think the game designers didn't think too carefully about the interaction of keeping the wording of the Grab ability mostly the same as 3.5 coupled with the fairly radical change to the PFRPG grapple rules.
I actually agree with you -- I think the intent was probably to keep Grab working mostly the same as 3.5's Improved Grab (and so grappling at -20 wouldn't cost you an action). I just think the game designers didn't think too carefully about the interaction of keeping the wording of the Grab ability mostly the same as 3.5 coupled with the fairly radical change to the PFRPG grapple rules.
I think you're on to something here. A huge penalty to grapple for a very minimal benefit. Something's not adding up.
I actually agree with you -- I think the intent was probably to keep Grab working mostly the same as 3.5's Improved Grab (and so grappling at -20 wouldn't cost you an action). I just think the game designers didn't think too carefully about the interaction of keeping the wording of the Grab ability mostly the same as 3.5 coupled with the fairly radical change to the PFRPG grapple rules.I think you're on to something here. A huge penalty to grapple for a very minimal benefit. Something's not adding up.
I think another benefit is that, since when you take the -20 penalty you are not regarded as 'in the grapple', you could attack someone else and grapple them too. You do get the -20 penalty to both grapples of course.
That's the way I read it in any case and it's the way I will be using the Feasting Damnation (a massive aberation with 8 grabbing tentacles) from Second Darkness AP#18, Descent into Mindnight. Otherwise, I could only grapple one victim at a time, which seems a bit silly.