One of my group is attempting to use Greater grapple to maintain a grapple on one creature with a move action, and initiate a new grapple simultaneously with another creature with his standard action, thus grappling 2 creatures at once.
Is this possible?
I have seen someone grapple and pin two people IRL, but they initiated the grapple against the one person, not the other way around. I can just about see how it might be possible, but myself I'd apply a hefty negative modifier to trying it, as you have to keep one hand at least on the person you have pined.
RAW, this is allowed. However, if a humanoid does it, he'll be taking a -4 penalty because he doesn't have both hands free; grappled creatures cannot perform actions that require two hands to perform.
RAW, this is allowed. However, if a humanoid does it, he'll be taking a -4 penalty because he doesn't have both hands free; grappled creatures cannot perform actions that require two hands to perform.
I can't work out how this is allowed RAW. Can you show me a reference? I can only see this being allowed RAI at best.
From the combat rules:
"In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action."
From the grapple description:
"As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options."
"Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll. If successful, both you and the target gain the grappled condition."
From Greater Grapple:
"Once you have grappled a creature, maintaining the grapple is a move action."
And from the description of the Grappled condition:
"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."
... reading this altogether, a creature with Greater Grapple can maintain one grapple as a move action, and start another grapple as a standard action. Starting a grapple does not require two hands free. There are rules to allow this set of actions and no rules that prohibit it.
I can't work out how this is allowed RAW.
You're allowed a move action and a standard action in the same round. You can maintain a grapple with a move action, and initiate a grapple with a standard action. Initiating a grapple doesn't require two hands.
There are rules to do this. The question is, are there any rules prohibiting this? I don't see any (except, perhaps, the rule that says multiple grapplers should use Aid Another).
I can't work out how this is allowed RAW.You're allowed a move action and a standard action in the same round. You can maintain a grapple with a move action, and initiate a grapple with a standard action. Initiating a grapple doesn't require two hands.
There are rules to do this. The question is, are there any rules prohibiting this? I don't see any (except, perhaps, the rule that says multiple grapplers should use Aid Another).
Actually, for humanoids, it does require two hands. Failing to meet this requirement imposes a -4 penalty on your grapple checks.
Which means the -4 is applied to each of your individual grapples: -4 to maintain your exisitng grapple and -4 to initiate the new one. This is RAW.
It's not RAW, but I would think that -4 should apply to your CMD when your two opponents try to break free. After all, if grappling with one arm tied behind your back makes it hard to get a grip on your enemy, then it seems like it should make it equally hard to hang on when he tries to get away.
What's really funny is when you use Greater Grapple to grapple two foes, and then you pin them, and then you tie them up (don't ask me how many hands that takes, or what alternate appendages you use to handle the rope).
Our monk uses greater grapple to hold you and vital strike you for 4d6 a round its real fun
What's really funny is when you use Greater Grapple to grapple two foes, and then you pin them, and then you tie them up (don't ask me how many hands that takes, or what alternate appendages you use to handle the rope).
Is there no size limit on this? So you could simultaneously tie up two colossal dragons in one round? It seems like the rules need some clarification here.
We came to a similar conclusion, that this wasn't disallowed by RAW. But given the description of the Greater Grapple feat, it doesn't seem like it was intended to allow grappling multiple opponents:
Greater Grapple (Combat)
Maintaining a grapple is second nature to you.
Prerequisites: Improved Grapple, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +6, Dex 13.
Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to grapple a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Grapple. Once you have grappled a creature, maintaining the grapple is a move action. This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round (to move, harm, or pin your opponent), but you are not required to make two checks. You only need to succeed at one of these checks to maintain the grapple.
Normal: Maintaining a grapple is a standard action.
No mention of it here, you would think it would be included as an option in the bracketed section, and in the Normal: section ie 'You can only grapple one opponent.'
Is there no size limit on this? So you could simultaneously tie up two colossal dragons in one round? It seems like the rules need some clarification here.Sure, grab them by their heads. Not so hard :)
But with your penalties and their size bonuses, it's highly unlikely.
Agreed, but still possible. Size does matter in this scenario. I can visualise a character grappling two Pixies quite easily, for example. But 2 Hill Giants? I find that a lot harder to swallow.
Agreed, but still possible. Size does matter in this scenario. I can visualise a character grappling two Pixies quite easily, for example. But 2 Hill Giants? I find that a lot harder to swallow.Is there no size limit on this? So you could simultaneously tie up two colossal dragons in one round? It seems like the rules need some clarification here.Sure, grab them by their heads. Not so hard :)
But with your penalties and their size bonuses, it's highly unlikely.
Hill Giants are CR7. Two of them are CR9. If a 9th level fighter were to grapple them (9th level because that would be a level-appropriate challenge):
Human Fighter:
STR 24 (18 (start) + 4 (belt) + 2 (leveling)
CMB +16 (9 BAB, 7 STR); CMD: 28 (10 base + 9 BAB + 7 STR +2 DEX)
Hill Giants:
CMB +15; CMD 24
Round 1:
Fighter: Approaches HG1, provoking due to HG1's reach. Might even provoke HG2 if the two giants are close together. Grapples HG1 using a standard action to initiate grapple. Must roll an 8 or higher since he can use both hands. Not bad. 65% chance of success.
HG1: Tries to escape, needing to roll a 13 or higher, for a 40% chance to succeed (60% chance the fighter hangs on).
Hg2: Pounds on fighter with his club, at reach, 10' away from the fighter.
Round 2:
Fighter: Assuming the fighter has retained hold (39% chance so far), he can use his move action to maintain his grapple, getting +5, so he only needs to roll a 3 or higher. 90% chance of success (35.1% cumulative so far). Assuming he succeeds, he can move HG1 closer to HG2, closing the distance to get within grapple range. This provokes because even though it's only 5', it is not a five-foot-free-move. Now he uses his standard action to grapple HG2. He cannot use both arms, so he takes a -4 penalty on this grapple check. He needs to roll a 12 or higher, a 45% chance to succeed. He's down to a 15.8% chance to have made it this far (meaning if he tries this 6 times, he'll probably only get this far one time). Note that he hasn't done any actual damage yet, but he's probably taken some from HG2 pounding on him at least 3 times so far.
HG1: Tries to escape. Once again, he must roll a 13 or higher for a 40% chance. We're down to a 9.5% chance that the fighter still has two giants under his control.
HG2: Same 13 or higher chance to escape. Down to 5.7% to still have both of his giants grappled.
Round 3: OK, folks, this is the championship round.
Fighter: If our intrepid fighter has managed his 5.7% chance to get this far, he can try to maintain his grapples against both giants, taking a -4 penalty on each roll because he's only using one arm on each of them. He does get the +5 for having maintained the grapples this far, so he only needs to roll a 7. That's a 70% chance to maintain each hold. And we are down to about a 2.8% chance that he can succeed at all these rolls so far. If he does, he can inflict his normal unarmed damage to each giant (or, oddly, he can pin them so he can tie them up next round - he he ties one HG while still holding the other HG is a mystery, but the RAW seems to allow it).
***********************************************************************
So, to answer your post, you're right, it would be very hard to swallow indeed. Essentially, if our fighter tries this 100 times, he should expect to achieve a double pin just three time. He'll get hurt doing it, but a 9th level fighter can probably survive 4 hits from a hill giant, even if they hit all 4 times.
Frankly, I wouldn't worry about this happening any time soon.
Note: I did not apply the -4 penalty for using one arm to the escape attempts of the two giants in round 2, since the RAW seems to only apply it to the checks made by the one-armed grappler (it doesn't seem to apply - as a bonus - to his opponents' checks to escape from the one-armed holds). However, as I've said before, a loose reading of the RAW could infer that there is a "one-arm" penalty that applies to all CMB rolls in which he is involved, which would include rolls made against him. Logic would support this; if it's harder to achieve and maintain the grapple with one arm, then it's also harder to maintain it when your foe tries to squirm out of it.
So if I re-calculate the odds with this penalty applied, that gives a 60% chance for each giant to escape in round 2, resulting in only a 2.5% chance that he still has ahold of them at the start of round 3, and a mere 1.25% chance that he maintains both holds long enough to pin them. One chance in a hundred. Not good odds.
Agreed, but still possible. Size does matter in this scenario. I can visualise a character grappling two Pixies quite easily, for example. But 2 Hill Giants? I find that a lot harder to swallow.Is there no size limit on this? So you could simultaneously tie up two colossal dragons in one round? It seems like the rules need some clarification here.Sure, grab them by their heads. Not so hard :)
But with your penalties and their size bonuses, it's highly unlikely.
Hill Giants are CR7. Two of them are CR9. If a 9th level fighter were to grapple them (9th level because that would be a level-appropriate challenge):
Human Fighter:
STR 24 (18 (start) + 4 (belt) + 2 (leveling)
CMB +16 (9 BAB, 7 STR); CMD: 28 (10 base + 9 BAB + 7 STR +2 DEX)Hill Giants:
CMB +15; CMD 24Round 1:
Fighter: Approaches HG1, provoking due to HG1's reach. Might even provoke HG2 if the two giants are close together. Grapples HG1 using a standard action to initiate grapple. Must roll an 8 or higher since he can use both hands. Not bad. 65% chance of success.
HG1: Tries to escape, needing to roll a 13 or higher, for a 40% chance to succeed (60% chance the fighter hangs on).
Hg2: Pounds on fighter with his club, at reach, 10' away from the fighter.Round 2:
Fighter: Assuming the fighter has retained hold (39% chance so far), he can use his move action to maintain his grapple, getting +5, so he only needs to roll a 3 or higher. 90% chance of success (35.1% cumulative so far). Assuming he succeeds, he can move HG1 closer to HG2, closing the distance to get within grapple range. This provokes because even though it's only 5', it is not a five-foot-free-move. Now he uses his standard action to grapple HG2. He cannot use both arms, so he takes a -4 penalty on this grapple check. He needs to roll a 12 or higher, a 45% chance to succeed. He's down to a 15.8% chance to have made it this far...
You're right of course, (I picked Hill giant off the top of my head incidentally, but great post anyway!)but my issue comes out of the fact that it is possible at all, however unlikely it might be. And as I mentioned above, I don't think it's what was intended for the feat.
You're right of course, (I picked Hill giant off the top of my head incidentally, but great post anyway!)but my issue comes out of the fact that it is possible at all, however unlikely it might be. And as I mentioned above, I don't think it's what was intended for the feat.
You're probably quite right. I generally don't like to guess at what the authors meant to write, but in this case, my guess is that the feat was intended to allow a really dedicated grappler to maintain a grapple on one foe and still pulverize him with a weapon, too. Or to do exactly what it says, maintain twice per round so the grappler could damage his victim twice.
As for grappling two foes at once, I would be a bit surprised if many DMs would houserule that right out of existence, or at the very least, rule that they can only do it to creatures one or two size categories smaller - at least then it's easier to suspend disbelief. I mean, I can see Aragorn grabbing and hanging onto two hobbits at the same time, right?
I would probably houserule it that way too.
And I would further houserule it that you must have at least one free hand to bind a pinned foe, so there should be no way to pin two enemies and still manage to tie them up. Unless the grappler is a Marilith (e.g.).
Something that came up recently is the rules for attacking in a grapple.
If I'm being grappled and I'm dual-wielding daggers, can I full attack the person grappling me, or am I limited to one stab?
Something that came up recently is the rules for attacking in a grapple.
If I'm being grappled and I'm dual-wielding daggers, can I full attack the person grappling me, or am I limited to one stab?
You can full-attack if you are being grappled (while the creature that is grappling you can only try Grapple checks to damage/pin/move/tie you), but
PRD -> Special Attacks -> Combat Maneuvers -> Grapple:
"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."
Basically, you can full-attack only with one hand (and so, only with one of your two daggers). The rules are silent about creatures that rely on natural attacks, though: I would say that they could full-attack, too, but would lose one of their natural attacks (1 Claw by default), if possessing more than one. But this last reading can be debatable, of course.
One quick note in the above example: don't forget that a grappled creature has a -4 Dex, which translates into -2 CMD for maintaining or breaking the grapple.
Considering I have seen bouncers do this at a bar, I would have no problem with it. There was no way those bouncers were lvl 6. Its so situational and hard to do against anyone who should be able to fight back that I don't really think its a problem.
DM Blake, you forgot the +4 the fighter would have to both CMD and CMB for the grapple feats.
Ice Titan, as others have said, TWF requires 2 hands and cannot be performed with the grappled condition.
|
Something that came up recently is the rules for attacking in a grapple.
If I'm being grappled and I'm dual-wielding daggers, can I full attack the person grappling me, or am I limited to one stab?
You can full-attack if you are being grappled (while the creature that is grappling you can only try Grapple checks to damage/pin/move/tie you), but
PRD -> Special Attacks -> Combat Maneuvers -> Grapple:
"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."Basically, you can full-attack only with one hand (and so, only with one of your two daggers). The rules are silent about creatures that rely on natural attacks, though: I would say that they could full-attack, too, but would lose one of their natural attacks (1 Claw by default), if possessing more than one. But this last reading can be debatable, of course.
My only problem with this is that it states that you can make "an attack" . Do you count a full-round attack as "an attack"? I always assume that it is one attack and that the grappled creature is spending the rest of the round trying to maneuver into position to make that attack.
My only problem with this is that it states that you can make "an attack" . Do you count a full-round attack as "an attack"? I always assume that it is one attack and that the grappled creature is spending the rest of the round trying to maneuver into position to make that attack.
Although I, too, do not like particularily this rule, this is the official answer by Jason Bulmahn himself:
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