| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Normal grapple is a standard action that uses all limbs. Grab doesn't convert a standard action grapple using all limbs into an attack that uses only one limb unless you take the -20cmb penalty. That is the point of the penalty.
Dropping the grapple as a free action doesn't let you get around that because once you decide the grapple normally, the grapple must be resolved normally, which uses up the other limbs and the remainder of the action, because a normal grapple is a standard action, not a action in place of a melee attack, and it use the whole body, not just a limb.
What's being suggested here is you use your free action to convert a standard action into a melee attack, or actually take a free action to drop an standard action before it's resolved then nevertheless gain the benefits as though it was.
|
I agree with Ravingdork that Grab does not end the creature's attacks. Let's assume that the octopus already grappled a creature, somehow, in a previous round. It can still attack the enemy with all of its attacks despite being grappled (it takes a -2 to the attack rolls, but the enemy takes a -4 penalty to Dex (and thus a -2 to AC) for being grappled, so it evens out).
All 'grab' does is allow the octopus to start the grapple freely, instead of as a standard action. So it can hit with one tentacle, start the grab, then wail away with its other tentacles. There's nothing against that.
It doesn't say grapple as a free action. It says Start a grapple, which can be conducted normally or with only one limb.
If it grapples normally it uses it's other limbs, so doesn't have them available for further attacks. If it takes the -20CMB it only uses the limb that succeeded in the attack, so has it's remaining limbs free for further attacks.
"or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple" really has no meaning otherwise.
Like above, 'dropping the grapple as a free action' doesn't make this rule moot, because if you used all your limbs to grapple normally, you must have already resoved that, used up the other limbs, before you can then drop the grapple.
|
You can't take a free action to drop an standard action before it's resolved then nevertheless gain the benefits as though it was.
It's not doing that. The key is that Constrict damage triggers on a successful grapple check - the actual grapple following it is neither here nor there.
Normal grapple is a standard action that uses all limbs. Grab doesn't convert a standard action grapple using all limbs into an attack that uses only one limb unless you take the -20cmb penalty. That is the point of the penalty.
Well, yes and no really. Grab replaces the usual Standard Action to initiate a grapple check with a free action on a successful hit with a related attack. It doesn't replace the standard action required to maintain a grapple on subsequent rounds, unless the Grab character opted for the -20 penalty. But in the case of RD's suggested octopus attack routine it's not continuing on to the 'maintainin the grapple' part at all - it's hitting, squeezing for damage, and dropping its target.
Put another way, just because the creature is using Grab, doesn't mean it can't release the grapple as a free action like any other character could - you don't get worse at grappling (or controlling your own grappling) by having the Grab trait. Any character could, in theory, make a successful grapple check (as a Standard Action), then choose to release that grapple as a free action before their turn finishes, with no penalties for doing so. It's just that the octopus gets the Constrict damage for making the grapple check in the first place, so unlike most characters, it actually has good reason to do that.
It's down to the perception of time in a round. In theory, a character could ready an action to 'attack the octopus when it's grabbed something' - in that case the octopus would attack with a tentacle, hit, roll damage, roll the free grapple check for its Grab ability, make that check, roll damage for its Constrict ability - and then the readied action triggers (at which point the octopus still has the grappled condition). Only after the readied action is concluded could the octopus continue by releasing the grapple (as a free action) and making its next attack (no longer suffering the grappled condition itself). It's a hit-grab-constict-drop routine which, via a ready action, can be interupted whilst the octopus is still suffering from the grappled condition, but it just rarely happens that way because of the manner in which attacks within a round are structured (i.e. each character gets all their attacks before moving on to the next character, instead of, for example, alternating attacks).
|
|
Right, I'm only talking about the first round of combat. You could have him start the grapple with that first tentacle hit and continue to wail with the rest. In future rounds, it would indeed need to spend a standard action to maintain it. Of course, with this standard action, it could also do damage, move, or even pin its amount.
Just let your grab-happy monsters take the "Multigrab" and "Greater Multigrab" feats from Savage Species. The first reduces the penalty to -10, while the second removes it completely :)
"it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple"
It's both make and maintain, not just maintain.
It's not taking that option - it's taking the 'normal grapple check' option, then dropping the grapple before maintaining it leeches any more of its actions, or gives it continuing penalties.
Taking the normal grapple option uses all your limbs - that's why there is the option that allows you only use one - if you use all your limbs to grapple, you can't then also use them to attack.
|
Whichever tentacles are still holding Mr. Tasty from the first round must now roll to maintain their grapple. Those that are successful can automatically make one of the grapple maneuvers (damage, pin, etc.) and if they does NOT constrict this round they can automatically inflict their "Grab" damage per the description of the "Grab" ability: "If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature's descriptive text)."So, during the second round, every tentacle that maintains a grapple can choose to do Grab damage or Constrict damage but not both.
IMO, the text "Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well" means it deals both Grab damage and Constrict damage if it constricts.
No. Reading it your way completely invalidates the bit that says "if the creature does not constrict". If we read it your way, then there is no reason for that bit to even exist in this paragraph.
But it does exist.
So, if you don't constrict, you can Grab to do some damage. On the other hand, if you do constrict, then you can execute a normal "maintain the grapple action" which would be to pin the foe, move the foe, or damage foe. In addition, you can apply your constrict damage as well.
DM_Blake, I think Caineach got it right. Grab does not inflict any damage; you inflict damage with the (natural) attack that triggers the grab, and if you establish the hold, you also get to constrict. Yes, the whole ability is badly worded, and in most cases it's completely worthless to maintain the hold because it's a standard action (i.e. one grapple attempt per round). For example, from a purely mechanical point of view the octopus described above should just release all established grapples each round and go with the full attack for another round of free constrict damage with each successful check (rinse and repeat).
I wish Grab would grant some sort of bonus damage for each established grapple on a victim, but no such luck. I also think that the penalty (-20) is way too much; -5 or -10 would be acceptable, though.
|
|
Taking the normal grapple option uses all your limbs - that's why there is the option that allows you only use one - if you use all your limbs to grapple, you can't then also use them to attack.
While that's a perfectly logical statement, it's not supported by RAW... whether it should be or not is another question. By RAW, using a limb to make one attack doesn't lock it up from making later attacks in the same round after that first attack is done and dusted (otherwise a character could never attack more than once in a round with a single weapon). So, just like the Fighter with 5 attacks who full attacks to stab 5 times with his sword, the octopus can hit-grab-constrict-drop as many times as it has attacks. Now, there is somewhat of a difference between multiple attacks and multiple natural attacks - which is, essentially, the core of the point you're making, as far as I understand it - but no RAW definition (which I can find, at least) to support the idea that a full grapple locks up your limbs or swallows your natural attacks even after you drop it.
Okay, I may have this very wrong, but I need to get it sorted.
However, if you read it your way, the text "as well" makes even less sense :)Rmember that when you make a successful grapple action, something happens.
1. You initiate a new grapple.
2. You maintain an existing grapple.
2a. You move your enemy.
2b. You pin your enemy.
2c. You damage your enemy.If you have the Constrict ability, and you are not using your Grab ability. then when you make a successful grapple roll, you will achieve one of those things I just listed, and you can inflict your Constrict damage "as well".
As I understood it, combat might go something like this:
Round 1:
Giant octopus rolls 8 attacks with tentacles, hits 5 times. Does damage on those hits.
GO rolls 5 grapple checks due to the grab skill. Succeeds on 3 checks. Does constrict damage 3 times. Target is now in a "grappled" state but GO is not because GO has improved grab, and controls the grapple.
Lets pretend the target doesn't get out.
Round 2:
GO has 3 "grapple" attacks and 5 "regular" attacks it can make. It starts with the grapple attacks because hell, why not.
1st attack, grapple check to maintain existing grapple. Also deals constrict damage.
2nd attack, grapple check to pin. Also deals constrict damage.
3rd attack, grapple check to move opponent within striking distance of the beak. Also deals constrict damage.
4th attack: tentacle swings at grappled foe, who is denied dex bonus. If it hits, provokes an opposed grapple check. If successful deals constrict damage.
5th attack: tentacle swings at grappled foe, who is denied dex bonus. If it hits, provokes an opposed grapple check. If successful deals constrict damage.
6th attack: tentacle swings at grappled foe, who is denied dex bonus. If it hits, provokes an opposed grapple check. If successful deals constrict damage.
7th attack: tentacle swings at grappled foe, who is denied dex bonus. If it hits, provokes an opposed grapple check. If successful deals constrict damage.
8th attack: tentacle swings at grappled foe, who is denied dex bonus. If it hits, provokes an opposed grapple check. If successful deals constrict damage.
9th attack: Beak.
Is this not correct?
I see a lot of "grapple is a standard action so you have to use all 8 tentacles to grapple" mess here in this thread, but if so, what's to prevent the octopus from letting go as a free action before he starts his attack, and then rolling all 8 tentacles again?
The giant octopus sounds like a great opportunity for one of these Paizo writers to come in here and tell us how the monster is supposed to work.
Taking the normal grapple option uses all your limbs...
If this were true, than you wouldn't be able to grapple with only one limb. RAW specifically states that you can grapple with only one free hand. The game designers have even clarified that a grapple is different in Pathfinder, like grabbing someone's arm--something that hardly requires the whole body. They further elaborated that, unlike a grapple, a pin was more like the traditional Roman hold (which likely would require a large portion of the body to do properly).
|
|
Is this not correct?
I see a lot of "grapple is a standard action so you have to use all 8 tentacles to grapple" mess here in this thread, but if so, what's to prevent the octopus from letting go as a free action before he starts his attack, and then rolling all 8 tentacles again?
No, it's not; there is no "opposed grapple check" in PF RPG anymore. It's simply a CMB vs. CMD check, and you need to spend a standard action to maintain or escape the grapple. As you said, nothing prevents the octopus from releasing the grapple and going with 8 attacks again, and that is actually the most sensible thing to do per RAW.
I have always dreamt of making a druid shaping into an octopus for this reason. The problem have always be sustaineability above water, but that problem has a solution. 3 levels of horizon walker and the Mr. O is breathing air and flying...
No, it's not; there is no "opposed grapple check" in PF RPG anymore. It's simply a CMB vs. CMD check, and you need to spend a standard action to maintain or escape the grapple. As you said, nothing prevents the octopus from releasing the grapple and going with 8 attacks again, and that is actually the most sensible thing to do per RAW.Is this not correct?
I see a lot of "grapple is a standard action so you have to use all 8 tentacles to grapple" mess here in this thread, but if so, what's to prevent the octopus from letting go as a free action before he starts his attack, and then rolling all 8 tentacles again?
Weird.
Okay.
If that's the way to play it, then that's the way to play it. Release and attack again because constrict sucks otherwise. Gotcha.
I have always dreamt of making a druid shaping into an octopus for this reason. The problem have always be sustaineability above water, but that problem has a solution. 3 levels of horizon walker and the Mr. O is breathing air and flying...
Does turning into an octopus take away your ability to breath air? Or grant you the ability to breath water even? I'm not so sure.
EDIT: "If the form grants a swim or burrow speed, you maintain the ability to breathe if you are swimming or burrowing." - Polymorph rules
So it DOES grant you the ability to breath water, but does NOT seem to take away your ability to breath air.
My transmuter character used to change into a giant octopus and use overland flight to fly all over the place for longer periods of time. I would often hide in the ceiling rafters and "hang" people with my tentacle ambushes.
|
|
No, it's not; there is no "opposed grapple check" in PF RPG anymore. It's simply a CMB vs. CMD check, and you need to spend a standard action to maintain or escape the grapple. As you said, nothing prevents the octopus from releasing the grapple and going with 8 attacks again, and that is actually the most sensible thing to do per RAW.Is this not correct?
I see a lot of "grapple is a standard action so you have to use all 8 tentacles to grapple" mess here in this thread, but if so, what's to prevent the octopus from letting go as a free action before he starts his attack, and then rolling all 8 tentacles again?
Weird.
Okay.
If that's the way to play it, then that's the way to play it. Release and attack again because constrict sucks otherwise. Gotcha.
Yeah, it's weird if you think about it; I've considered houseruling it so that it's a standard action to maintain all the grapples. You might also describe it as a continuing grapple if a character that was grappled last round gets hit again.
"it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple"
It's both make and maintain, not just maintain.
This is how I run it as well. If the creature wants to grapple with just the tentacle, then they take a -20 penalty to start the grapple as well.
This strange cheese others are coming up with where you get to grapple using your full CMB, release as a free action, then do it eight more times sounds like rules lawyering cheese I would never allow in my campaign.
An octopus will take the -20 penalty if he chooses to attack with all eight tentacles and grapple with each one gaining constrict damage.
Constrict and grab are not weak. Merely situational as they should be. A creature that grapples shouldn't be all that effective with a ton of other people around ready to beat on him. The strength of a grappler should come when a character is alone or when some grappler is ambushing and the creature grabs them and runs off with the character or chokes them to death in their bed. That's when grappling is dangerous.
Like grappling in the real world.
I'm 99.9% certain this is how the game designers intended it to be run. Not some strange cheese where the octopus or polymorphed octopus wizard can do eight attacks with eight constricts getting his full CMB on every single attack. That's cheese rule lawyers try to hoist on inexperienced DMs that allow such rubbish.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the assembly-line grapple thing is cheesy. When I picture a fight with a giant squid, that's not what I think of at all.
Remember guys, "there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn." I think if you're doing the same free action more than once in a turn (ending a grapple, for instance), that's a good sign you might be hitting your limit.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Why would the octopus lose all it's attacks once it gains the grappled condition on the first round? There's nothing in the grappled condition that states you lose your attacks:
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.
The octopus would only take the -20 penalty if it decided it wanted to grapple its foe without assuming the grappled condition itself, so it could maintain dex bonus to AC, and it's combat reflexes for threatened squares, etc. Or if it wanted to maintain its full attack options the next round without having to let the other guy out of the grapple.
The point of the -20 penalty is so you yourself aren't stuck with the grappled condition, not so your turn doesn't end. There's nothing anywhere in the rules that ends your turn once you successfully grapple something. The only time you're forced to decide between a standard action and letting the guy go as a free action is at the start of round 2.
You're not making "assembly line" free actions, you're deciding at the beginning of the 2nd turn whether or not to maintain the grapple as a standard action, or to let your opponent go as a free action so you can make a full round attack. That's one free action. Singular. And in doing so, you forego all your options to pin your foe or drag him into the deeps.
Octopi are squishy, weak, and take up a lot of room, so they're typically surrounded in melee. I don't see how depriving them of the rights to use one free action is so important. It's not like they can damage anyone with DR5 anyway, all their attacks suck. In most scenarios they're going to *want* to maintain the grapple and move the opponent deeper into the ocean.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That ain't what some people are saying:
"So each tentacle hit (for 1d4+2) Mr O could initiate a normal grapple (for 1d4+2 Constrict damage if the check works), release it as a free action (in the middle of his attack routine), then attack with the next tentacle without suffering penalties for the grappled condition. 16d4+32 possible damage indeed! Go Mr O! Even better, he can do that for 7 attacks, and not release the 8th attack, and Mr T still ends up grappled at the end of the turn..."
So it goes like this:
That's what I mean by assembly-line grapple. And I think it's cheesy.
Personally beej67, I think you've got the right idea. It seems to me the intent of the rules is that on your next turn, you can decide whether to drop the grapple as a free action or maintain is as a standard action. That isn't super clear with the rules, but that's the only way they make sense to me.
That ain't what some people are saying:
So they're trying to avoid the -2 to hit that comes from the grappled condition?
No, I think you're stuck with that no matter what. Your option to take the free action and release the grapple happens at the beginning of round 2. Says so in the rules. If you choose to grapple and don't take the -20 penalty, then you're stuck in the grappled state for a round while the PCs pound on you. You still get all your attacks on the first round though, no matter what, because nothing in the grappled condition states that you don't get your attacks. They're just all at -2 because you've gained the grappled condition. The Combat section just states that if you begin a round in a grappled condition your attack options are limited and you can't take the 'full attack' action.
So round 2 comes up, and you either free-action-release the guy so you can get out of the grappled state and then make your full attacks, during which you may or may not initiate other grapples with the same guy or other guys, possibly dealing constrict damage (which still isn't that much per hit) and possibly regaining the grappled condition if you don't take the -20. Or if you don't free-release, you choose to take the standard action and maintain the grapple, likely dealing constrict damage to the guy you hit before, and likely choosing "move" to drag him into the deep, likely provoking attacks of opportunity from the rest of the PCs.
That and trying to hit a single guy with constrict damage 8 times in one round.That ain't what some people are saying:
So they're trying to avoid the -2 to hit that comes from the grappled condition?
There's nothing anywhere in the rules that says successfully achieving a grapple ends your turn. Please find it for me.
If Thor came down from Valhalla and decreed that all Giant Octopuses were forboden from taking Free Actions for all eternity, it could still get its full attacks on the first round. Otherwise, what would be the point in saying that melee attacks in the grappled state have -2 penalty?
Once it announces a full attack action, it gets those attacks unless something happens to put it in a state where it can no longer attack. The grappled state does not prevent attacks. If it was suddenly stunned or helpless its attack would end, but it's not. It either gains the grappled state, or it takes -20 to avoid the grappled state. The fact that it might gain the grappled state during the attack does not retroactively change its action from "full attack" to "standard attack." It. Gets. Its. Attacks.
Any attacks it gets after it gains the grappled state are at -2 to hit, per the state rules, and it's stuck in the grappled state until the next round while the PCs pound on it. But it gets 'grab' on every attack, and 'constrict' on any attacks it grabs on. It's an octopus. It's what it does. It's a CR 8 creature that only does 1d4+2 damage on a hit, and only 1d4+2 more on a constrict. Giant Squid does four times that at CR9.
Is there anything in the constrict rules that states you only get to constrict once a round? If that was the intent, they'd surely specify that in the rules for constrict.
|
|
So they're trying to avoid the -2 to hit that comes from the grappled condition?
That and trying to hit a single guy with constrict damage 8 times in one round.
There's nothing anywhere in the rules that says successfully achieving a grapple ends your turn. Please find it for me.
Once it announces a full attack action, it gets those attacks unless something happens to put it in a state where it can no longer attack. The grappled state does not prevent attacks. If it was suddenly stunned or helpless its attack would end, but it's not. It either gains the grappled state, or it takes -20 to avoid the grappled state. The fact that it might gain the grappled state during the attack does not retroactively change its action from "full attack" to "standard attack." It. Gets. Its. Attacks.
Any attacks it gets after it gains the grappled state are at -2 to hit, per the state rules, and it's stuck in the grappled state until the next round while the PCs pound on it. But it gets 'grab' on every attack, and 'constrict' on any attacks it grabs on. It's an octopus. It's what it does. It's a CR 8 creature that only does 1d4+2 damage on a hit, and only 1d4+2 more on a constrict. Giant Squid does four times that at CR9.
Is there anything in the constrict rules that states you only get to constrict once a round? If that was the intent, they'd surely specify that in the rules for constrict.
No-one's saying you don't get all 8 attacks, and no-one's saying you're limited to one grapple per round.
Your post shows you want to be reasonable, by applying the -20 'single-limb' grapple penalties, or the 'oh, crap I'm too busy to avoid that Sneak Attack' grappled condition. Not everyone is willing to accept those restrictions, the objections you're hearing are aimed at them, not necessarily you.
What posters like Asphesteros do not like, is the attempt to have up to 8 unmodified, full CMB grapple checks per round, each one taking place in between each tentacle attack and a free action release, so as to avoid a) taking any penalties on the CMB, and b) to avoid taking any penalties on the attack rolls.
An unmodified CMB grapple is assumed to use the whole creature's body, so the scenario they find unbelievable is one where the octopus does the following;
1) attack with tentacle 1 at full bonus,
2) deal normal tentacle damage,
3) gain free grapple with eight tentacles at full CMB,
4) deal constrict damage,
5) release the hold.
6) attack with tentacle 2 at full bonus,
7) deal normal tentacle damage, etc.
Assuming a target (or targets) with sufficiently low AC and CMD that the octopus made all the rolls, this would result in the octopus using each limb 9 times per round (once for an attack, and eight times to contribute to eight different full-body grapples), ie the octopus has taken 72 tentacle-actions and 8 free actions, with no penalties. And he still has his swift/immediate, and can talk trash to his food, since we all know talking is a free action.
While we'd all like to be good multi-taskers, some would say doing 80+ things in 6 seconds is rather taking the piss.
Ok, this seems to be very complicated.
The question seems to be: does a (successful?) grapple (using grab) - or getting the grapple condition - end your turn?
Many seem to say "getting the grappled condition ends your full attack", thus taking -20 on grapple to avoid the condition doesn't end the full attack. This would also benefit the Kraken with its "Tenacious Grapple" ability (which says it never gets the grappled condition if grappling with its tentacles or arms). Although i favour this point of view, I can't find a rule that actually says that the full attack ends with getting the grappled condition. But it does say, that starting a grapple with grab is a free action... and starting the grapple is ALL you do in the first round. You don't maintain the grapple or do anything that is - by the rules - a standard action.
So I'd say: Starting grapple with grab is a free action, not preventing any further attacks (just giving the usual penalties for the grapple condition) in that round. But I wouldn't allow the "attack - grab - damage - release" combo. The reason was already given: It is absolutly ok to frobid too many free actions in a single round.
Ok, let's have a look at the damage and how I understand it.
"A creature with this special attack can crush an opponent, dealing bludgeoning damage, when it makes a successful grapple check (in addition to any other effects caused by a successful check, including additional damage)."
Constrict damage is dealt with every successful grapple check. Period.
"A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack."
A successful hold (i.e. attacking with an attack that has grab and succeeding the resulting grapple check) doesn't deal damage, unless the creature has constrict. Period.
"If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold."
BUT: If the creature "does not constrict" (i.e. doesn't have the ability "constrict") it does automatically deal damage from the natural attack that triggered grab, but only in successive rounds!
"Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature’s descriptive text)."
So this is tricky. There is no clear comment on what exactly it means by "as well". I'd interprete it this way:
"If the creature has the constrict special attack, it deals constriction damage as well as the normal damage of the grab attack (the amount is given in the creature’s descriptive text)."
But an official rule would be nice at this point.
What posters like Asphesteros do not like, is the attempt to have up to 8 unmodified, full CMB grapple checks per round, each one taking place in between each tentacle attack and a free action release, so as to avoid a) taking any penalties on the CMB, and b) to avoid taking any penalties on the attack rolls.An unmodified CMB grapple is assumed to use the whole creature's body, so the scenario they find unbelievable is one where the octopus does the following;
1) attack with tentacle 1 at full bonus,
2) deal normal tentacle damage,
3) gain free grapple with eight tentacles at full CMB,
4) deal constrict damage,
5) release the hold.
6) attack with tentacle 2 at full bonus,
7) deal normal tentacle damage, etc.Assuming a target (or targets) with sufficiently low AC and CMD that the octopus made all the rolls, this would result in the octopus using each limb 9 times per round (once for an attack, and eight times to contribute to eight different full-body grapples), ie the octopus has taken 72 tentacle-actions and 8 free actions, with no penalties. And he still has his swift/immediate, and can talk trash to his food, since we all know talking is a free action.
While we'd all like to be good multi-taskers, some would say doing 80+ things in 6 seconds is rather taking the piss.
Oh dear god, I didn't think anyone in the thread was proposing that each tentacle got to act 9 total times, for a possible maximum of 72 hits.
The rules on this seem very clear to me, if you just follow the process of combat.
Octopus announces a full attack action. At that point he gets the right to execute 8 tentacles and 1 bite attack unless he somehow enters a condition during the combat that would prevent that. If a tentacle hits, then he has the option to execute a grab. If the grab hits he deals constrict damage, and gains the grappled condition unless he opted to take the -20 penalty. Gaining the grappled condition does not end his attack, but does give him -2 with all other attacks in the round. Each subsequent tentacle attack (at -2) has the possibility of grabbing and constricting just like the first one. If he ends the turn in a grappled state, he can't take a "free action to release the foe" until the beginning of Round 2, and if he does so he doesn't get to do any of the cool grapple things, like dragging his foe below the water.
|
|
I've long ago ceased to be surprised what some folk try to slide under the cat-flap.
I think you have the right idea; the octopus can lash out at up to 8 different targets with its tentacles, each successful hit also giving a free attempt at a hold (albeit at lower chance than if it were to focus all its efforts on a full-body grab).
If it gets lucky, it could establish a hold on a target, or several targets, without being disadvantaged itself.
Next round, begin a new full attack routine, starting with any free tentacles. This gives it a bonus to hit the already grappled targets, and another attempt to hold.
If the new holds work, it's got nothing to lose by letting go with the original holding tentacles, and swinging for new targets.
Eventually, if it's a bigger, stronger creature, it could have several PCs held down, and still have tentacles left over to keep whacking them with, and threaten any potential rescuers.
|
|
This strange cheese others are coming up with where you get to grapple using your full CMB, release as a free action, then do it eight more times sounds like rules lawyering cheese I would never allow in my campaign.
Well, it's a rule-lawyering thread, so what do you expect? ;p
The 'hit-free grapple check from Grab-Constrict damage-free action to release grapple' routine is perfectly rules-legal, as per RAW, as pointed out in various posts above. Whether it's cheesy or not is another question completely. Personally, as far as the giant octopus goes, I don't think it's overpowered... but I'd still not use it as a DM, because it is cheesy as stilton left on the radiator when it comes to the fluff of it - when my giant octopus grabs people I want them to stay grabbed, dammit! 'Klytus - is your octopus on the right pills? Maybe you should execute its trainer?' ;)
A few more points...
There's nothing in the rules about a normal grapple automatically using all your limbs... in fact, it's closer to the opposite, as the only thing close is where it states (in the grapple rules), '... Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a -4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll...'. So non-humanoid grapplers are golden... or, at worst, needing two limbs to conduct a normal grapple (although such a requirement would, strickly, be a house rule).
The term 'grapple check' is used in the grapple rules - it's a standard Combat Maneuver Roll with any grapple-specific modifiers applied. It's neither incorrect nor inaccurate to use the term 'grapple check' when refering to such a roll.
A successful grapple automatically moves the grappled target to a space next to you - your giant octopus doesn't have to waste any more effort doing that (e.g. getting you next to his beak). Even a 'limb only' grapple does this, despite normally being allowed to only inflict damage, because this movement (moving the target next to you) is part of the results of a successful grapple check, not an application of the 'move' grapple option (which moves both you and your target).
Nothing in the rules suggests that a successful grapple check cuts short your turn, or uses all of your turn. A normal attempt to initiate a grapple takes a standard action, as does maintaining a grapple, but in either case you still have your move action (+ swift action, + free actions) to play with, and in the former case (initiating a grapple) the Grab ability allows you to do so for free (zero action cost) when the related attack hits.
The main problem people seem to have with all this is that you need to look at lots of different parts of the rules for what is, at the end of the day, one monster attack. You have the octopus attack, then check what Grab does... then check what Constrict does... and how grapples work... then how the grappled condition effects things... then what it means by a free action to release a grapple... then you go back and decide whether to try a normal grapple or a limb-only grapple...
... By which point everyone else has finished the pizza and are talking about last night's telly... ;)
Once you've run through the various rules in order, it actually becomes relatively easy - but if you have a Grab & Constrict monster lined up, it's well worth sitting down and going through it step by step by yourself before you bring such a thing to the gaming table.
|
|
The worse monster with multiple grabs is the Giant Fly-trap since it has both grab and engulf.
engulf
So, a fly-trap that starts its round with a couple of full mouths, can choose to drop everybody but one, and engulf that one. Next round it just starts the full attack (minus one mouth) and can start grappling people again.
I've long ago ceased to be surprised what some folk try to slide under the cat-flap.
And I long aago ceased to be surprised by people's knee jerk reactions stemming from a lack of understanding of the rules. There's no cheese here. Only RAW.
I think you have the right idea; the octopus can lash out at up to 8 different targets with its tentacles, each successful hit also giving a free attempt at a hold (albeit at lower chance than if it were to focus all its efforts on a full-body grab).
If it gets lucky, it could establish a hold on a target, or several targets, without being disadvantaged itself.
Pathfinder grapple rules are clear in that you cannot grapple more than one target at a time (though you can be grappled by more than one creature). This is one of the reasons why the -20 option for creatures with the Grab ability (and similar abilities) remain useful despite my (correct) rules interpretation presented in this thread.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I've long ago ceased to be surprised what some folk try to slide under the cat-flap.And I long aago ceased to be surprised by people's knee jerk reactions stemming from a lack of understanding of the rules. There's no cheese here. Only RAW.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Something can be RAW and cheese.
|
|
What posters like Asphesteros do not like, is the attempt to have up to 8 unmodified, full CMB grapple checks per round, each one taking place in between each tentacle attack and a free action release, so as to avoid a) taking any penalties on the CMB, and b) to avoid taking any penalties on the attack rolls.An unmodified CMB grapple is assumed to use the whole creature's body, so the scenario they find unbelievable is one where the octopus does the following;
1) attack with tentacle 1 at full bonus,
2) deal normal tentacle damage,
3) gain free grapple with eight tentacles at full CMB,
4) deal constrict damage,
5) release the hold.
6) attack with tentacle 2 at full bonus,
7) deal normal tentacle damage, etc.Assuming a target (or targets) with sufficiently low AC and CMD that the octopus made all the rolls, this would result in the octopus using each limb 9 times per round (once for an attack, and eight times to contribute to eight different full-body grapples), ie the octopus has taken 72 tentacle-actions and 8 free actions, with no penalties. And he still has his swift/immediate, and can talk trash to his food, since we all know talking is a free action.
While we'd all like to be good multi-taskers, some would say doing 80+ things in 6 seconds is rather taking the piss.Oh dear god, I didn't think anyone in the thread was proposing that each tentacle got to act 9 total times, for a possible maximum of 72 hits.
The rules on this seem very clear to me, if you just follow the process of combat.
Octopus announces a full attack action. At that point he gets the right to execute 8 tentacles and 1 bite attack unless he somehow enters a condition during the combat that would prevent that. If a tentacle hits, then he has the option to execute a grab. If the grab hits he deals constrict damage, and gains the grappled condition unless he opted to take the -20 penalty. Gaining the grappled condition does not end his attack, but does give him -2 with all other attacks in the round. Each subsequent tentacle attack (at -2) has the possibility of grabbing and constricting just like the first one. If he ends the turn in a grappled state, he can't take a "free action to release the foe" until the beginning of Round 2, and if he does so he doesn't get to do any of the cool grapple things, like dragging his foe below the water.
Yes, this is how it works. Now, some posters apparently think it's cheesy, but I'd say it's not nearly as cheesy as some of the optimization combos PCs can pick.
@ProfPotts: I don't think anyone claimed there are no grapple checks in PF RPG, but one of the posters referred to opposed grapple checks that were replaced by the current combat maneuver system.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Something can be RAW and cheese.
Ah. True that.
Allow me to rephrase: "I don't think this 'combo' is cheesy at all."
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So let ma add a question: The Mr. O needs to take -20 to not get the grappled condition and to be able to grapple more then one creature at a time. Where exactly can I find the statement that you can only grapple one creature at a time (I know it makes sense, but I can't find it right now...)?
If that is the case, what about the Tenacious Grapple of the Kraken? It says, that the Kraken doesn't gain the grappled condition if grappling with on of its tentacles, thus it wouldn't normally need to take -20 to avoid the condition. Does that also mean it doesn't need to take the -20 to grapple more then one creature? How are the "maintain grapple"-rolls resolved? Rereading grab, it seems that all the -20 penalty does, is allowing you to not gain the grapple condition. It doesn't make maintaining a grapple a free action.
So reading the grapple and grab rules, I can't find a way to actually grapple (i.e. maintain a grapple with) more then one creature, except with greater grapple.
Did I miss something?
|
|
The two are not mutually exclusive. Something can be RAW and cheese.
And of course, there are many things that may be RAW, but are a million miles away from RAI.
The rules are workable for the vast majority of creatures, who are either bipedal or quadripedal (with the occasional set of wings thrown in).
Where the grapple rules fall down, is for creatures, like octopi, that are composed of almost 100% limbs, each limb being capable of almost infinite points of articulation, and independent movement.
Such creatures really need to be able to carry out more than the default 'one grapple action per round', but rather than mangle the default grapple rules, surely it would be better to grant such creatures racial abilities that let them act as an exception to the default?
Why not treat each limb as a separate creature, with its own action economy?
That is even the approach used in one of the official PF scenarios.
Why not reduce or remove the -20 penalty for only using one limb? Those limbs are far more specialized than an owlbear's paw, after all.
Pathfinder grapple rules are clear in that you cannot grapple more than one target at a time (though you can be grappled by more than one creature). This is one of the reasons why the -20 option for creatures with the Grab ability (and similar abilities) remain useful despite my (correct) rules interpretation presented in this thread.
Really? Where is that? I'm not doubting you, I just can't find it.
As I understand the flow of combat, the GO can announce a full attack, take his 8 tentacle attacks, and engage in a grapple with up to 8 different creatures within his reach. He cannot MAINTAIN a grapple with more than 1 of them on round 2 though, because maintaining a grapple is a standard action, and he only gets one of those.
Why not treat each limb as a separate creature, with its own action economy?
That is even the approach used in one of the official PF scenarios.Why not reduce or remove the -20 penalty for only using one limb? Those limbs are far more specialized than an owlbear's paw, after all.
If we're talking about realism here, (lolwut) I don't think the way the core rules play out is too far off how octopi actually attack in the wild.
Octopi don't have central brains in the sense that we do, and their arms all tend to do their own thing unless they receive "overriding orders from central command" so to speak. Which is one of the reasons the arms tend to wiggle and whatnot when they're cut off. An octopus in the wild will flail at its opponent with all of its limbs to grab and squeeze, (round 1) and once it grabs on, they all work together to squeeze, bite, and drag it away. (round 2)
The only really "unnatural" variant of the RAW GO attack modes listed above is the "let go as a free action to take 8 attacks again in the second round" thing, which is a GM call. And that GM call might make sense if the GO is Awakened (per the druid spell) and able to think strategically. And if an evil scientist implanted a brain in a real world octopus, he might attack like that too.
If I were to do any snazzing up of the monster as a GM, I'd say that any time it takes an 8th of its hit point total due to slashing damage, a tentacle pops off, and if that tentacle was already grappled to someone, it continues to try and maintain the grapple every round. That'd give the PCs a pretty good "Oh Noes!" moment.
Pathfinder grapple rules are clear in that you cannot grapple more than one target at a time (though you can be grappled by more than one creature). This is one of the reasons why the -20 option for creatures with the Grab ability (and similar abilities) remain useful despite my (correct) rules interpretation presented in this thread.Really? Where is that? I'm not doubting you, I just can't find it.
As I understand the flow of combat, the GO can announce a full attack, take his 8 tentacle attacks, and engage in a grapple with up to 8 different creatures within his reach. He cannot MAINTAIN a grapple with more than 1 of them on round 2 though, because maintaining a grapple is a standard action, and he only gets one of those.
Read the grapple rules. Every mention of the grapple victim is used in the singular.
I'm sure there was a more specific statement saying that you could only grapple one target, but I'm still trying to find it.
So let ma add a question: The Mr. O needs to take -20 to not get the grappled condition and to be able to grapple more then one creature at a time. Where exactly can I find the statement that you can only grapple one creature at a time (I know it makes sense, but I can't find it right now...)?
If that is the case, what about the Tenacious Grapple of the Kraken? It says, that the Kraken doesn't gain the grappled condition if grappling with on of its tentacles, thus it wouldn't normally need to take -20 to avoid the condition. Does that also mean it doesn't need to take the -20 to grapple more then one creature? How are the "maintain grapple"-rolls resolved? Rereading grab, it seems that all the -20 penalty does, is allowing you to not gain the grapple condition. It doesn't make maintaining a grapple a free action.
So reading the grapple and grab rules, I can't find a way to actually grapple (i.e. maintain a grapple with) more then one creature, except with greater grapple.
Did I miss something?
The Grab ability specifically states that creatures still need to maintain the grapple when using the -20 option (else, why penalize it?). As such, I think the rules support your theory that the -20 option does NOT allow you to maintain a s a free/non-action. However, I think that it SHOULD.
Really? Where is that? I'm not doubting you, I just can't find it.Read the grapple rules. Every mention of the grapple victim is used in the singular.
I'm sure there was a more specific statement saying that you could only grapple one target, but I'm still trying to find it.
Which grapple rules, the ones in the combat section? They only list one victim because the grapple is resolved one victim at a time.
Find it please, because I'm not buying the "grammar nuance" being the only precedent.
"Whoops! You grabbed me already, can't grab me anymore! No, really, it's singular instead of plural in this other section of the rulebook!" is super hokey. No offense meant. It is a rule that could stand some clarification. I'm actually quite surprised there's not some Creative Director post on the forums about it. It's the primary reason I signed up for a forum account, truth be told.
I also have a hard time believing all you have to do to tie up the Great And Powerful Kraken is get him in a grapple with one PC and he's stuck in that single action until the PC croaks, because of a grammar nuance.
In 3.5 you could only grapple one opponent unless otherwise stated.
On the other hand:
PRD:Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.
Now the above sentence does not say you can't threaten other squares, but the only logical reason that prevents AoO's is not being able to threaten other squares. If you can't threaten the other squares then you can't attack anyone in those squares. If you can not attack into those squares then you can not grapple anyone in those squares of course.
I am wondering if they are implying that you can not threaten other squares without actually saying it, or if the no AoO's is an exception to the rule where you can threaten other squares, but still can not make AoO's/
PS:One issue is that that grappler and the person that is grappled should both have specific labels.
Some of the trouble here is people reading into the Grab (Ex) that it converts a 'normal grapple' from an action that takes a standard action using the whole body into merely a melee attack requiring only one limb.
-- The rules are clear what kind of action a normal grapple is "as a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe"
-- The rules do say you can perfome a grapple without both hands free "Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll" but it cirtainly does not say that this allows you to take iterative melee attacks along with an attempt to grapple.
-- There IS a rule, however, that specifically DOES allow you to make a grapple attack with only one limb. That rule is part of the Grab(Ex).
-- That Extraordinary Ability allows a creature to "simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent." However "it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself"
Now, it is a fair interpretation to suggest that accepting the -20 penalty, and being free from the grappled condition, amounts to a special (not normal) grapple attack which would allow further iterative attacks from a full attack action, but even that is interpretation, not RAW. By the rule as written a hit by a melee attack with Grab does only is as it says, "allows the creature to start a grapple".
- It does not say it converts a grapple from a standard action into a melee attack
- It does not say it gives the creature a bonus standard action to grapple on top of the full round action it took for full attack
- It does not say it allows continued iterative attacks despite the creature having taken a standard action by grappling.
And given that Grab(Ex) DOES clearly give an option that may be interpreted to convert a grapple from standard to melee attack, and explicitly identifies itself as the means to conduct a grapple with only one limb, which option would be totally moot if such was possible for a 'normal grapple' There is no basis for the interpretation initialy propposed.
Yes, 8 tries to grapple and constrict in a single round with a -20CMB penalty is signifigantly less game breaking than 8 tries + the grappled condition, but that's obviously the RAI.
By RAW, arguably the octo wouldn't get further iterative attack even taking the -20CMB because the rules do not say anywhere that the grapple is anything but a standard action, nor that it gives you a bonus standard action in addition to the full round action used to make the full attack, nor that you may continue iterative attacks despite having ended the full attack full round action early (which the rules do say you can do) in order to perform the other action.
Aargh! Why do people keep saying that it takes a standard action when it clearly doesn't?
|
|
- It does not say it converts a grapple from a standard action into a melee attack
- It does not say it gives the creature a bonus standard action to grapple on top of the full round action it took for full attack
- It does not say it allows continued iterative attacks despite the creature having taken a standard action by grappling.
You are right, it does not state that it turns the grab from a standard action to a melee attack. Instead it states that it turns the grapple from a standard action to a free action.
Grab (Ex) If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity.
|
|
Two things in a 'normal grapple' take a standard action: 1. initiating a grapple, and 2. maintaining a grapple. This is the main reason why most creatures can only grapple one thing at a time - most creatures only get one standard action per turn, and even if they did get AoO initiating a grapple is, as mentioned, a standard action, not an attack action - hence, generally, you can grapple one thing.
Grab alters the rules for 1. above - instead of a standard action to initiate a grapple, the creature can initiate a grapple for free (i.e. it takes no more time / it is included as part of the attack action already taken) if its related attack hits. There's no mystery '... and a standard action to grapple...' added onto that... all you do when you first initiate a grapple is initiate the grapple, which takes as much time as it takes you to initiate a grapple... clear so far? ;p
2. above only kicks in when the grappling creature's turn rolls round again... at which point it can use a standard action to maintain the grapple. Before this point rolls round it's used no more time / actions / effort than it took to initiate the grapple in the first place. Before this point it can also have done plenty of other stuff with the rest of the turn on which it initiated the grapple - including using its move action to do something, using its swift action to do something, using as many free actions as the DM lets it get away with, and - if its grappling with Grab - use the rest of its iterative attacks (assuming it was using a full-round action to full-attack in the first place). So, yes, an 8 attack giant octopus can grapple 8 guys in one round. There's also nothing to say it has to maintain each grapple individually - it takes a standard action and maintains its grapples, if that's what its doing on subsequent turns.
But truth be told, it's a giant octopus - chances are its sushi well before any of this matters... ;)