Rake confusion


Rules Questions


Can someone explain how the heck this works?

If I'm an enlarged human and a cat uses a move action to move next to me and I use my aoo to grapple the cat, does the cat get to use it's rake or no? What if the cat is an eidolon with grab and rake and the opponent is a beblith?

Can you use a single natural attack in a grapple withou making a cmb check?
What conditions can rake be used outside of pounce?
Is there a distinction between "grappler" and "grapplee"? Some sort of sub-condition? When the text says something like "when you are grappling a foe" does that refer to either party in the grapple if both have the grappled condition, or only the one that initiated the grapple?


Well, being enlarged or not doesn't effect whether or not rake works, so I'll just cover the grappling issue. The wording of rake specifies that the creature "begin its turn already grappling to use its rake". This seems different than merely having the "grappled" condition. Essentially, it seems, they must be "in charge" of the grapple. So, if you grapple the cat, it cannot use its rake ability.

Well, if the "cat" is an eidolon with the grab and rake abilities and it manages to "grab" the bebilith, then it can rake on the next round (assuming it maintains the dominant position on the bebilith). Since you cannot begin a grapple and rake in the same round, your "cat" will have to wait. If the bebilith has grappled the "cat", then it cannot rake until it gains the dominant position.

As to making attacks in a grapple, you have to maintain the grapple to deal damage. So, as your CMB check, you can deal damage equal to your natural attack damage. You do not, however, need to roll to hit with this attack if your CMB check succeeds.

Rake can be used in a pounce, or after the first round of a grapple. Those are the only ways I could find.


Mauril wrote:

Well, if the "cat" is an eidolon with the grab and rake abilities and it manages to "grab" the bebilith, then it can rake on the next round (assuming it maintains the dominant position on the bebilith). Since you cannot begin a grapple and rake in the same round, your "cat" will have to wait. If the bebilith has grappled the "cat", then it cannot rake until it gains the dominant position.

As to making attacks in a grapple, you have to maintain the grapple to deal damage. So, as your CMB check, you can deal damage equal to your natural attack damage. You do not, however, need to roll to hit with this attack if your CMB check succeeds.

Rake can be used in a pounce, or after the first round of a grapple. Those are the only ways I could find.

the intent is the opposite. The beblith as it's aoo grapples the eidolon during the eidolons turn, and the eidolon thn can do what? Make one natural attack? A natural attack and a rake? Make a cmb check to make one natural attack? Only make a cmb to escape or control the grapple?

Does the beblith grappling the eidolon prevent me from attacking?


You can't use your AoO to grapple anymore unfortunately, it's now a standard action.

Regardless, you can't start a grapple and rake in the same round, you have to start your round grappling.

What does it matter if the target is a Bebilith?

No. You need to make a CMB check; you then inflict damage equal to your natural attack (or unarmed strike, or light weapon). If you have rake you get 2 additional attacks.

None.

Damn! Ninja'd!


Tanis wrote:

You can't use your AoO to grapple anymore unfortunately, it's now a standard action.

Regardless, you can't start a grapple and rake in the same round, you have to start your round grappling.

What does it matter if the target is a Bebilith?

No. You need to make a CMB check; you then inflict damage equal to your natural attack (or unarmed strike, or light weapon). If you have rake you get 2 additional attacks.

None.

Damn! Ninja'd!

so when it says "if you are grappled you may breake the grapple or take control of the grapple or instead of these options you may do anything requiring one hand", I have to succeed at a cmb check to do anything requiring one hand? I can't use natural attacks as that "one hand" action?


It says (Core p.200) a CMB check allows you to continue the grapple and do one of the following: move; damage; pin; tie up. If you choose damage then rake kicks in (so to speak). If you don't have two hands free, then you take -4 to the check.

What do you mean you can't use natural attacks as that one-hand action?


Tanis wrote:

It says (Core p.200) a CMB check allows you to continue the grapple and do one of the following: move; damage; pin; tie up. If you choose damage then rake kicks in (so to speak). If you don't have two hands free, then you take -4 to the check.

What do you mean you can't use natural attacks as that one-hand action?

Well, I'm in a grapple, and I have rake.

The book says, as a grappled creature, I have three options. I can A) CMB to escape the grapple, B) CMB to control the grapple or INSTEAD of those two options I can do anything requiring one hand.

I have the grappled condition, My opponent has the grappled condition, and he is in the nebulous state of having started the grapple. Since I'm grappled I don't have to 'continue the grapple'.

I can do anything requiring one hand. I don't have any limbs involved in maintaining the grapple. I don't want to end the grapple, and I don't want to control it. I just want to damage the opponent, which, since I'm an ediolon and have natural attacks seems to be something I should be able to do. Do they mean I can do anything with one hand except make a natural attack?

I do not understand why something that choose to grapple me is suddenly immune to my rake attacks. I have to make a check to use those - they aren't just bonus attacks.

So for instance, I, as human wrestling specialist, could grapple jaguars all day, and since they are the ones being grappled, they are pretty much unable to use their rake attacks unless they use their turn to control the grapple, and then on their next turn if they can maintain the grapple, then they get what is the equivalent of a full attack - note that once they were in charge of the grapple they could release it as a free action and get *the* *same* *number* of attacks.

So, excepting pounce, what is the point of rake?


I assume you're referring to this entry: "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".

So you're the target of a grapple; you make a CMB check with a DC of the CMD of the creature that grappled you. If successful you can either: break the grapple; reverse the grapple; or attack with a light weapon (your natural attack). Once you've attacked with your natural weapon you apply rake attacks and damage.

So it's very useful for damaging grappling opponents, in your example the human wrestling specialist would be ripped to shreds.


Tanis wrote:

So you're the target of a grapple; you make a CMB check with a DC of the CMD of the creature that grappled you. If successful you can either: break the grapple; reverse the grapple; or attack with a light weapon (your natural attack). Once you've attacked with your natural weapon you apply rake attacks and damage.

So it's very useful for damaging grappling opponents, in your example the human wrestling specialist would be ripped to shreds.

The only problem I have with this, is that in referencing the combat section regarding grapple, the grappled condition, and the rake ability is that the above is never stated.

There is no indication from the 'things you can do while you are grappled' that you need to make a CMB check to do something with one hand (though my DM seems to agree with you), and it is totally and wholly unclear that you get to apply your rake attacks and damage when you make that natural attack.


First line of p.201 says: "If you are grappled, you can attempt
to break the grapple as a standard action by making a
combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check... Alternatively, if you succeed, you can become the grappler, grappling the other creature"

It goes on to say that "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".

That's pretty clear that with a CMB check you can do any of the above.

Now, as per rake (Beastiary p.303): "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".

Therefore, once you've succeeded at a CMB check you can attack, with two additional attacks and rake damage. You can ONLY use your rake attacks against the creature you're grappling tho.


As I also stated in the original reply, you have to be the grappler, not simply have the grappled condition. So, if the bebilith (or any other creature for that matter) grapples your "cat", here is how things have to go, if you want your "cat" to use his rake attack. I am going to assume the bebilith goes first and am only including the two creatures in the scenario.

Round 1a: bebilith grapples "cat"
Round 1b: "cat" uses action to reverse grapple
Round 2a: bebilith fails to reverse grapple again (or does something else)
Round 2b: "cat" makes CMB check to maintain the grapple to attack, can use one natural attack and the rake attacks


Tanis wrote:

First line of p.201 says: "If you are grappled, you can attempt

to break the grapple as a standard action by making a
combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check... Alternatively, if you succeed, you can become the grappler, grappling the other creature"

It goes on to say that "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".

That's pretty clear that with a CMB check you can do any of the above.

Thank you for responding.

I don't mean to sound unappreciative, but this is the point in contention. It is not clear - in fact there is nowhere that it's stated as the grapplee that you need to make a CMB to attack. The phrase "Instead of attempting X, You can Y." indicates to me that you *don't* need the roll.


From the Combat section on 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).

After that follows the list of actions you can do, which includes the option to deal damage.


Mauril wrote:
As I also stated in the original reply, you have to be the grappler, not simply have the grappled condition. So, if the bebilith (or any other creature for that matter) grapples your "cat", here is how things have to go, if you want your "cat" to use his rake attack.

You original response was accurate. It *seems* this way from the wording to my DM. It *seems* the other way to me.

There is a grappled condition. There is a statement about starting a grapple with a penalty to avoid having a grappled condition.

The fact is, I can not find in the rules anywhere it's explicit that there is a 'grappler/grapplee' distinction. If there is not, then anyone with the grappled condition is a grappler, and will get torn up by a rake, which is the point. Yes, you can succeed at a CMB check to gain the option to release the grapple as a free action, OR escape the grapple - this doesn't introduce some undefined sub-condition such as 'grappler/grapplee'

If you have to succeed at a grapple check to control the grapple, and then you can release the grapple as a free action if you do, then I do not understand the benefit of rake.
If I can release the grapple and full attack, then why would I want to penalize myself and stay in the grapple for the chance to *not* get my rake attacks? (Since I am the 'controller' or 'grappler' or whatever, I have to make a CMB to do damage - which differs from the text under 'if you are grappled') I am aware that they trigger on pounce - is that really their only use?

I don't mean to be difficult, but it does not say under 'you're being grappled' that you have to make that CMB check to do the one hand thing, it's unclear everywhere about this "I started/am in control of the grapple bit"

To rephrase the 2 things I'd like to know.
1) If you are grappled is or is it not necessary to roll CMB vs. CMD to get your one hand action.
2) What is the benefit of rake in a grapple when you can just release the grapple and get the same number of attacks. In your example Mauril, why does the cat not just release the grapple and full attack? what advantage does the rake give?

My contention is that if the cat is grappled, then . . .

PRD bestiary wrote:
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. The bonus and damage caused by these attacks is included in the creature's description. A monster with the rake ability must begin its turn already grappling to use its rake—it can't begin a grapple and rake in the same turn.

A) It's been grappling (i.e. has the grappled condition) since the start of it's turn.

B) The person that it is involved in the grapple with is a grappled foe.

so, since it can take any action requiring one hand INSTEAD of rolling to control or escape the grapple, it can use a natural attack. Since it has rake, and it is attacking, it "gains two additional claw attacks" that it is using against a grappled foe. Seems to grant the advantage to having someone grapple him - which I was denied in game.

I don't want to house rule these rules, or change them, I just want to be able to understand them.


Mauril wrote:

From the Combat section on 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).

After that follows the list of actions you can do, which includes the option to deal damage.

Yes, if you grapple your opponent or succeed on a grapple check. That is not the section I am questioning.

If you are grappled, it gives the specific option to escape or reverse, or an option to decline those two, and then lists actions you have the option of doing without rolling anything.


Nexusphere, i see what you mean now, and after thinking about it some more i've changed my stance on this, there's no reason why you need to make a grapple check just to attack. Besides that, you already need to make a concentration check (which has become a lot harder in PF), to have to make a grapple check as well makes grapple way too overpowered.

I still say that a grappled lion (or whatever) can rake an opponent after being grappled. It's an extension of their natural attack.

I can see where you're coming from Mauril, especially when you read the rake entry: "when it grapples its foe..."

However, it goes on to say:"...it can use only against a grappled foe". Under grappling it says that both creatures (the grappler and grapplee) gain the 'grappled' condigion.

Technically, even if you initiated the grapple, you are a grappled foe.


Again, it requires the raker to "begin its turn grappling" its opponent, not merely having the grappled condition. So, I'd rule that, at minimum, the creature with rake needs to have started or reversed the grapple.

To answer nexusphere's direct questions to me:
1) As far as I can tell, you have to make the CMB vs CMD check each round that you want to maintain a grapple. Options when maintaining a grapple include dealing damage equal to a natural attack or one-handed/light weapon. Casting a spell requires a further concentration check. So, for your big cat to rake an opponent (outside of a pounce attack), he has to maintain the grapple (CMB vs CMD check) to deal the damage of his natural attack plus the rake damage.
2)The benefit of maintaining the grapple, instead of releasing and full attacking, has to come with the penalties of the grappled condition. Losing dexterity bonuses and being immobile suck for lots of creatures. Having to make concentration checks to to cast spells is very detrimental for spellcasters. Getting more than just one natural attack is a bonus of having rake. Grappling is a powerful tactic, having rake makes is a better option.


Mauril wrote:
Again, it requires the raker to "begin its turn grappling" its opponent, not merely having the grappled condition. So, I'd rule that, at minimum, the creature with rake needs to have started or reversed the grapple.

Beginning it's turn grappling isn't every defined as anything other than starting it's initiative count with the grappled condition. You say it's 'not merely' that, but there's no text anywhere in the book that says otherwise.

Mauril wrote:

To answer nexusphere's direct questions to me:

1) As far as I can tell, you have to make the CMB vs CMD check each round that you want to maintain a grapple. Options when maintaining a grapple include dealing damage equal to a natural attack or one-handed/light weapon. Casting a spell requires a further concentration check. So, for your big cat to rake an opponent (outside of a pounce attack), he has to maintain the grapple (CMB vs CMD check) to deal the damage of his natural attack plus the rake damage.

And if you lack the ability to release the grapple and you don't wish to maintain, reverse or escape it?

Mauril wrote:
2)The benefit of maintaining the grapple, instead of releasing and full attacking, has to come with the penalties of the grappled condition. Losing dexterity bonuses and being immobile suck for lots of creatures. Having to make concentration checks to to cast spells is very detrimental for spellcasters. Getting more than just one natural attack is a bonus of having rake. Grappling is a powerful tactic, having rake makes is a better option.


Being the grappler and being the grapplee (as it were) are defined positions, in that their actions are specifically listed as different. You have to be the grappler to rake. Simple as that.

Regarding your second question:
Umm...then you are wasting your time? If you cannot release the grapple (for whatever reason) and you choose not to use one of the actions available to you, then you don't get to use your actions that round. The same as if, for a round, I choose not to move or attack or cast a spell or activate an item or pull something out of my bag or make some sort of skill check. I just do nothing and my turn ends.


Mauril wrote:

Being the grappler and being the grapplee (as it were) are defined positions, in that their actions are specifically listed as different. You have to be the grappler to rake. Simple as that.

Regarding your second question:
Umm...then you are wasting your time? If you cannot release the grapple (for whatever reason) and you choose not to use one of the actions available to you, then you don't get to use your actions that round. The same as if, for a round, I choose not to move or attack or cast a spell or activate an item or pull something out of my bag or make some sort of skill check. I just do nothing and my turn ends.

1) It's not as simple as that at all. Where does it actually say that you can't rake if you haven't initiated the grapple?

2) The only reason why you'd lack the ability to release the grapple is if you're not in control of the grapple. There's no reason why you can't attack with a light weapon, cast a spell etc.


Mauril wrote:

Being the grappler and being the grapplee (as it were) are defined positions, in that their actions are specifically listed as different. You have to be the grappler to rake. Simple as that.

Regarding your second question:
Umm...then you are wasting your time? If you cannot release the grapple (for whatever reason) and you choose not to use one of the actions available to you, then you don't get to use your actions that round. The same as if, for a round, I choose not to move or attack or cast a spell or activate an item or pull something out of my bag or make some sort of skill check. I just do nothing and my turn ends.

I've been sort of debating whether the rules read as if there were those two defined positions, or if you just get the one ability (+5 and can release the grapple as a free action) if you initiate or reverse the grapple.

If there are those two defined positions as you say (initiator of the grapple or Grappler versus one who is being grappled or graplee), then if I am the grapplee, under the section "If you are grappled", I have three options.

A)CMB to Reverse
B)CMB to escape
C)Take any action with one hand. (This does not require a check)

If they are *not* two defined positions, then when you have the grappled condition, no matter if you started it or not your options are as listed under "Grapple". Only. With the special exception of If you started the grapple, or if you won a check to reverse it, you get +5 and have the ability to release the grapple as a free action. In this case you would need to succeed on a CMB to damage your opponent. The 'if you are grappled' section in this case outline in this case only the circumstances how you can get that special exception and the text following "You can take any action. . ." is referring to the previous section.

"Grappling a foe" and "Start the turn grappling your opponent" have different meanings depending on your interpretation of the two above styles - If they are two defined positions, then you clearly need to be the grappler to use a rake. Also, "Grappling a foe" means you're only considered grappling a foe if you are the controller of the grapple.
If they are not two defined positions, just one with the special exception, then anytime you do damage you get your rakes cause you'd need to succeed at a grapple check to do the damage.

I appreciate the responses. It sounds like there are well thought out opinions. What there isn't is any clear linguistic reference in the book that makes the above explicit. I have not perused all the monster abilities or such to glean any inferences they may give us. I'm going to look and see if I can find any verbiage that gives me information on exactly how these rules work.


Rake wrote:
Rake (Ex) A creature with this special attack gains extra natural attacks under certain conditions, typically when it grapples its foe. 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. The bonus and damage caused by these attacks is included in the creature's description. A monster with the rake ability must begin its turn already grappling to use its rake—it can't begin a grapple and rake in the same turn.

Emphasis mine.

This is a strict RAW reading. The wording says that you must be grappling your foe, not merely having the grappled condition. Yes, it's a very strict reading of the rules, but that's what RAW rulings are. If you want to rule otherwise, that's fine. But in a forum, strict RAW is what has to be debated since that's the only common ground we have.

Think of it this way, if you must. When you initiate the grapple, you sort of have the grapplee at your mercy. If you are grappling something with hind claws (the rake ability), you have grappled it in such a way that it can't bring those claws to bear. It has to gain a dominant position to regain use of them, that is it has to reverse the grapple - becoming the grappler - and hold it that way for a round before being able to use its rake attack.


Mauril wrote:
Rake wrote:
Rake (Ex) A creature with this special attack gains extra natural attacks under certain conditions, typically when it grapples its foe. 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. The bonus and damage caused by these attacks is included in the creature's description. A monster with the rake ability must begin its turn already grappling to use its rake—it can't begin a grapple and rake in the same turn.

Emphasis mine.

This is a strict RAW reading. The wording says that you must be grappling your foe, not merely having the grappled condition. Yes, it's a very strict reading of the rules, but that's what RAW rulings are. If you want to rule otherwise, that's fine. But in a forum, strict RAW is what has to be debated since that's the only common ground we have.

I'm confused, isn't grappling a foe defined as having the grappled condition? If it's not, where is grappling a foe defined.

Mauril wrote:
Think of it this way, if you must. When you initiate the grapple, you sort of have the grapplee at your mercy. If you are grappling something with hind claws (the rake ability), you have grappled it in such a way that it can't bring those claws to bear. It has to gain a dominant position to regain use of them, that is it has to reverse the grapple - becoming the grappler - and hold it that way for a round before being able to use its rake attack.

Yes, this was my DM's argument. I understand it. What I can't find is where the book supports "sort of have the grapplee at your mercy" and "Grappled in a specific way". The 'dominant position' is defined only as +5 to continued grapple checks and the ability to release grapples as a free action.

I have all the rule sections up and have been reading them and re-reading them. What I can't find is a definition of "Begin it's turn grappling" as anything other than starting it's initiative count with the grappled condition.


This also might be relevant to the discussion, from:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/archives/grappleYupAgain&page=1

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

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

ALSO:

This:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/archives/defenderInGrappleWhichFlowchartIsCorrect&page=1&s ource=search#0

clearly indicates by RAW that you, as a defender in a grapple, do NOT need to make a CMB check in order to make an attack.

These two threads seem to indicate that if my ediolon (or anything with rake) gets grappled that they can indeed make a full attack + rake.

Scarab Sages

Ok, from page 199 to page 201 for the grapple stuff.

Standard action to attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options.

If successful, you both gain the grappled condition. The grappled condition can be found on page 567, and provides various penalties to actions. That's all that really matters as far as the "grappled condition" goes.

Farther into the entry on pg 200:

Although both creatures have the grappled condition, you can, as the creature that initiated the grapple, release it as a free action, removing the grappled condition from both you and the target.
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 bonus on grapple checks made against the 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: Move, Damage, Pin, Tie up.

Note here some important lines. The creature in control of the grapple is "grappling an opponent".

The creature not in control of the grapple is "grappled". Neither have any bearing on the grappled condition, which is separate, and a poor use of wording.

If you are grappled, you can try to break the grapple, take control of it, or ignore it and take any action that requires only one hand to use, such as casting a spell or attacking with a light or one handed weapon.

From the bestiary, rake on pg 303:
A creature with this special attack gains
extra natural attacks under certain conditions, typically
when it grapples its foe. 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. The bonus and damage caused by
these attacks is included in the creature’s description. A
monster with the rake ability must begin its turn already
grappling to use its rake—it can’t begin a grapple and
rake in the same turn.

Note the entry from rake includes the two elements pointed out above. First is "grapples its foe". Analogous to grapples an opponent, though preferably they should be exact matches.

Second is: use only against a grappled foe. This is not "a foe with the grappled condition", but one who is grappled as per pg 201, bolded text If You Are Grappled.

Note under If You Are Grappled, the first thing it discusses is breaking the grapple or taking control of it. This means you are not already in control.

So, again, you need to be grappling an opponent (ergo: in control of the grapple) in order to make your rake attacks. You must be already grappling - you can't begin a grapple and rake in the same turn. However, you should be able to take control of the grapple which would be your standard action. You could then rake if you had another standard action. Likely to not happen until your next turn.


This makes thematic sense too. A cat using it's paws to grab onto someone, is in control and thus can rake.

A person holding onto the cat's head or limb, is in control, and it would be weird for the cat to suddenly be able to rake in such a position.


Magicdealer covered what I was going to say, so I shan't retread it.


I'm going to chime in in opposition.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:


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.

So grappling in this context means more you've got a hand on someone, in the case of the raking cat you've got an arm in your claw or mouth and are free to use your other limbs.

I think your interpretation is correct for the "pinned" status, that if you are pinned you cannot rake unless you break free of the pin first. The "controller" of the grapple is not in as significant control as would be required, I think, to deny rake attacks.

However I think that you'll find that if you ignore the grapple and try to natural attack and rake the opponent you have just granted them a +5 circumstance bonus next round without any opposition and they will likely just pin you with it.

I think that some abilities should make you not want to grapple with a target unless you can pin them. To me, unarmed strikes like a monk's, lots of natural attacks and the ability to rake should all be reasonable deterrents to grappling with an opponent you cannot reasonably except to pin which makes sense, why should a standard human be somehow "magically" better than a large cat in a grapple simply because he is the one that has control over one of the cat's limbs?

-O

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Rake confusion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.