Grab & the grapple actions


Rules Questions

101 to 135 of 135 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Ravingdork wrote:
Aargh! Why do people keep saying that it takes a standard action when it clearly doesn't?

Because it clearly does: "as a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe"

I do buy that Grab can be interpreted to convert a normal grapple (standard action) into a melee attack equivalent action (such as trip sunder or disarm), by the creature using only that part of the body used to grab, thus leaving the creature itself not grappled and it's other limbs still free. This makes perfect sense - only the tenticle that hit is grappling, the rest of the creature is totally uninvolved, so the other tenticles can continue doing what they were doing.

I just acknowledge the rule in Grab that covers that:

to "simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent ...it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself"

that's RAW.

To have it your way, you'd really have to delete that line from the rules first, then replace "The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally" with "The creature conducts this grapple as part of the melee attack rather than as a standard action".

It's clear you're stuck on reading the rules as though that's how they were written, though. Ego's invested, so you can't let it go. Further reiteration has become pointless.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Asphesteros wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Aargh! Why do people keep saying that it takes a standard action when it clearly doesn't?

Because it clearly does: "as a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe"

I do buy that Grab can be interpreted to convert a normal grapple (standard action) into a melee attack equivalent action (such as trip sunder or disarm), by the creature using only that part of the body used to grab, thus leaving the creature itself not grappled and it's other limbs still free. This makes perfect sense - only the tenticle that hit is grappling, the rest of the creature is totally uninvolved, so the other tenticles can continue doing what they were doing.

I just acknowledge the rule in Grab that covers that:

to "simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent ...it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself"

that's RAW.

To have it your way, you'd really have to delete that line from the rules first, then replace "The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally" with "The creature conducts this grapple as part of the melee attack rather than as a standard action".

It's clear you're stuck on reading the rules as though that's how they were written, though. Ego's invested, so you can't let it go. Further reiteration has become pointless.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then.


Asphesteros wrote:
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.

That is ABSOLUTELY what 'Grab' does.

If Grab didn't do that, then you'd somehow have to retroactively backtrack whenever someone succeeded on a grab check and claim that the monster didn't take a full round attack action and instead took a standard action to grab.

There's no precedent in Pathfinder or 3.5 or 3.0 or 2.0 or Unearthed Arcana or 1.whatever for a game mechanic retroactively changing what your announced action was. Best as I'm aware anyway. Prove me wrong?

Happler wrote:
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.

Exactly.

That's the whole point of 'grab.'


Asphesteros wrote:
"as a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe"

"a grapple may be attempted as a standard action" /= "all grapples are standard actions."

click for a Venn diagram


Ravingdork wrote:
We'll just have to agree to disagree then.

Fair enough, but I forgot to add one last other point of the rules, and need to respond to beeg67 about backtracking.

The first two sentences of the rules on grapple state what exceptions apply:

"As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options. If you do not have Improved Grapple, grab, or a similar ability, attempting to grapple a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver."

That confirms the exception for grab provoking (which is what the "start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity" language in grab means), but specifically does not make an exception for grab for the kind of action it is. To read it your way it would include both exceptions - say something like:"If you do not have Improved Grapple, grab, or a similar ability, attempting to grapple a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Grab also allows grapple to be performed as a free action as part of a melee attack" or somesuch.

I grant 'start a grapple as a free action' sounds a hell of a lot like 'perform as a free action' but it's clear they just copied the formulaic language "as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity" from Trip(Ex) and "start" and "perform" are not the same thing. Both there and in the rule on Grapple, the point of the language is about whether or not it provokes - not to give octopi 8 constrict attacks *at full bonuses* anytime they can do a full attack action.

beej67 wrote:
There's no precedent in Pathfinder for a game mechanic retroactively changing what your announced action was. Best as I'm aware anyway.

No precedent for retroactivly changing an action I agree, but there is precedent for ending a full attack in the middle to then perform another type of action:

"Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action."

It's pretty clear grab is supposed to work in a simmilar way. The creature making a full attack, hitting with an attack with the Grab(Ex) has a choice

1) End the full attack and conduct the rest of it's turn as a normal grapple, OR

2) Use only the part of it's body that grabbed to conduct the grapple.

I agree with you both that a fair read of this second option allows the rest of the creature's body to finish it's remaining attacks.

I just can't agree that the second option defined in the rule is actually moot, meaningless, and really the first option does everything the second describes, but without the CMB penalty, and all the other rules text that conflicts with that reading should be interptreted to support that reading.


3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asphesteros wrote:
I grant 'start a grapple as a free action' sounds a hell of a lot like 'perform as a free action' but "start" and "perform" are not the same thing, and it's clear they just copied the formulaic language "as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity" from Trip(Ex) Both there and in the rule on Grapple, the point of the language is about whether or not it provokes - not to give octipi 8 constrict attacks *at full bonuses* anytime they can do a full attack action.

1) They're not at full bonuses. The moment it achieves the grappled condition all melee attacks are at -2. So if it doesn't want to be at -2 on 7 other attacks, it has to take -20 on the first grapple check. Likewise if it wants to maintain it's threatened squares (it does have combat reflexes) it has to take the -20. Likewise if it wants to avoid the dex penalty to AC it has to take the -20. Likewise if it wants to do any sort of stealth (giant octopi have great stealth skills) it has to take the -20. The -20 is there to avoid the Grappled Condition, and the rules state that very clearly.

2) If there's any difference between "starting" a grapple and "performing" a grapple, then here's the difference: Starting it for free means you don't have to perform it with a standard action.

Grab
Is
A
Free
Action
Under
All
Circumstances

Quote:
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.

The point of the -20 is not to maintain the free action ness of the free action. The point of the -20 is to avoid the Grappled State. It's very clear.

Quote:
The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply to 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, but does not gain the grappled condition itself.

I've changed nothing, interpreted nothing, and only quoted the rule. The rule does NOT say that grab changes from a free action to a standard action midstream unless you take a -20. The rule says that you may avoid the Grappled Condition by taking -20.

Its
Right
There

If the -20 was supposed to do something else, they would say it was supposed to do something else, not bury it in some sort of Obscure Legal Definition of the word "normal." "Normal" in this context, the context of the Grab rule, clearly means "adopts the grappled condition," since they specify very clearly what the alternate to "normal" is. If there was some other alternate to "normal" that happened from taking the -20, they would have specified that as well, in the rules for Grab.

We don't have to argue about what "normal" means because they tell us what "normal" means right there in the Grab rule. It means "gains the Grappled Condition."


You're bolding the wrong things:

"or simply to use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent"

If it's not using only part of it's body, it's using it's whole body (like you do when you wrestle, which is what grappling is). Imagine it. The octopus grasps with one tentlicle as oppose to closeing on the prey with all of them. If it grasp with one, it can use the others to do other things, if it doesn't it can't.

They use the word 'starting' because there are two different ways the grapple can be 'performed', normaly I.E. following the normal rules for grappling, and a special way, using only part of the body. The two words are not synonimous.

The normal rules of grapple are that it's a standard action, with no exception for grab.

That's RAW. Now talking RAI - A little common sense. Do you honestly believe that the rule writer's intent is for octopi to get 8 constricts at their normal CMB for a full attack, just at the cost of the grapple condition? *and* the rule writers *did not* intend the gab option that allows them to use their tenticles independently to be the means to allow them to use their tenticles independently?

If so, we'll have to just agree to disagree as well.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
beej67 wrote:
1) They're not at full bonuses. The moment it achieves the grappled condition all melee attacks are at -2. So if it doesn't want to be at -2 on 7 other attacks, it has to take -20 on the first grapple check. Likewise if it wants to maintain it's threatened squares (it does have combat reflexes) it has to take the -20. Likewise if it wants to avoid the dex penalty to AC it has to take the -20. Likewise if it wants to do any sort of stealth (giant octopi have great stealth skills) it has to take the -20. The -20 is there to avoid the Grappled Condition, and the rules state that very clearly.

Thank you; that was my stance earlier.

I have no problem with an octopus having 8 attacks, which result in 8 grabs, just with the idea that all attack rolls and CMB rolls would be at full bonus.

I do have a problem with the size of the -20 penalty, which I believe should have been reduced across the board in the move from 3.5 to PF, once the CMB became a roll vs flat DC rather than opposed rolls (the math behind this being that each +/- vs flat DCs is twice as significant), and should be further reduced because the bonuses to CMB/CMD for large size have been reduced to almost nil (or reinstate the meaningful size bonuses). Enforcing a penalty of -20 is far too extreme.

I also believe that certain creatures with advantageous physiology should reduce the 'one limb' penalty even further, and/or be allowed to maintain multiple grapples, and pull/constrict multiple opponents/turn without having to perform counter-intuitive actions, such as letting go of all victims.

I also believe creatures with Grab, should have the additional option to perform Improved Grapple, rather than Grab, which requires them to match the target's Full AC. In the case of creatures who do not damage via brute strength, but via acid, paralysis, shock, etc, it should not be required that they punch through solid steel, or find a gap in the target's full-plate, for them to hold on to that target.
This concept got a partial thumbs-up from SKR, when I brought it up in a thread about oozes.


Asphesteros wrote:
You're bolding the wrong things:

And you're inventing your own definition for what "normal" means instead of what Paizo said it means, and using your embellished version of "normal" to monkey with the Grab rules. The context of Grab is crystal clear that when they say "normal" they mean "adopts the grappled condition." Lets read it again.

The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply to 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, but does not gain the grappled condition itself.

(Choice A) or (Choice B just like Choice A except -20 and don't gain the grappled condition.)

The only difference is whether you gain the grappled condition. There's nothing in the language that states you'd suddenly lose all your attacks by choosing one over the other except for your perverted interpretation of the word "normal," which has no sort of precedent, is not defined anywhere, and completely contradicts the first sentence of the Grab rules which clearly states Grab is always a free action.

Asphesteros wrote:
The normal rules of grapple are that it's a standard action, with no exception for grab.

"As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options."

does
not
mean

"all grapples are standard actions"

It just means that you as a Player Character have the option of spending a standard action to do so. So does the Octopus. But it also has Grab, so it can do it that way too.

Here's a second venn diagram, maybe that will help.


Snorter wrote:
I have no problem with an octopus having 8 attacks, which result in 8 grabs, just with the idea that all attack rolls and CMB rolls would be at full bonus.

Right, that's my view as well.

I agree with your other points too. It seems clear the hole point of the 'use only part of the body to grapple' rule in Grab is to allow a giant to hold a guy in one hand, while fighting off his allies with the other(s), or like a octopus crushing someone in each tenticle, as they're often depicted in fiction. I'd also buy using the rule to allow multiple grapples and constricts on the same target in the same round, since it's specifically an exception to normal grapple rules.

But, a giant octo has a CMB for grapple of +19, which would mean a -1CMB to use all it's tentacles independently. How balanced that is I'm not sure, since at CR8, I imagine the CMD of the PCs facing it could be pretty high, making it effectivly impossible for it to pull off such a multi-constrict on a PC of it's weight class. As written, seems the multi-grab manuver would be more for flavor against any lower level NPCs hanging around. Like the crew of the ship it attacks like in 20,000 leagues under the sea, where it dramaticaly snatches up a half a dozen crewmen and crushes them to death in one round. I don't know, though, as CMDs don't factor AC bonuses so can get pretty merciless to PCs who rely on armor for defense.

But on the other hand the damage output possible if it COULD reliably do this single round 'grab, crush, grab, cursh, times 8' manuver, even if a -2 on the hits for grapple, isn't really fair to the PCs that would face it either.

As written, with a fair read of the special one limb grapple option, it's 8 attacks with each hit also a chance at -20CMB for extra constrict damage, plus any hit, even on a hit with the 8th tenticle, he has the option to instead turn his full attack into a normal grapple at full bonus plus constrict damage. That's at up to 8 bites of the apple at -20 for bonus constrict damage, plus any bite can be the normal bite anything with grab gets if he choose to take it. That seems plenty.


Quote:
But on the other hand the damage output possible if it COULD reliably do this single round 'grab, crush, grab, cursh, times 8' manuver, even if a -2 on the hits for grapple, isn't really fair to the PCs that would face it either.

It's 1d4+2.

A single dude with DR5 could solo it.

Is there any way to contact the powers that be and get an official ruling on this? This "depends on what your definition of the word 'normal' is" crap is worse than the Clinton Impeachment.


3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Actually it's potentially a lot more:

Ravingdork wrote:

Mr. Octopus should attack, grab, constrict, let go, repeat with his other 7 tentacles.

That's 16d4+32 damage if all attacks hit and all checks succeed.

I buy that as written with a -20CMB to get the bonus constricts. You can hit the FAQ button to flag it for notice. Seems to me 'normal' means normal - confusion is with "start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity". Leads people to think it can accomplish the whole grapple and constrict all as a free action (as though such a thing could reasonably happen all in a split second), when actually they just copied the same text from Trip to indicate there's no opp attack.

The rest of the rule makes clear a choice whether to start a normal grapple or leave one tenticle to conduct the grapple while the others remain free. It would play out like this:

Full attack action

- 1st tentacle hits. Octo has a choice: Use only that tenticle, or fully commit and go to the first line in "gapple" on P. 199 and take it from there. Since he wants to use his other tentalces to continue attacking, he takes the option to just use the one that hit. He doesn't get the grappled condition, since the rest of his body isn't grappling, but because only that one tenticle is doing all the work, that one tentacle rolls a grapple at a total -1 on the die (+19 normally -20 for only useing that part of it's body). If he hits he does constrict damage

- 2nd-6th tentacles, rinse/repeat.

- 7th tentacle hits. This time Octo doesn't want to press his luck any further, and prefers to get a better chance to constrict. So, he opts to fully commit and conduct a normal grapple. He gets the grappled condition and makes a CMB roll at full bonuses. Since this time he fully committed and did not choose to only use the tentacle that hit, his remaining 8th tentacle is part of the grapple, so can't then attack again on it's own (just like he wouldn't be able to take an attack of opportunity since he's now fully occupied grappling, just like a high level fighter doesn't additional iterative attacks when grappling). His full attack ends and the rest of his turn is that last grapple/constrict.

Scarab Sages

Obviously grapple rules are a mess....here is my fix:

Improved Grab should be changed for:

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 SWIFT action without provoking an attack of opportunity.

Mean only one Free Grapple attempt per round. Otherwise it is broken.

Maintaining a Grapple : not efficient because it wastes a standard action
When a character is held at the beginning of the monster's turn, maintaining the grapple should be relatively easy, so this grapple check should be a Free Action.

Taking -20: not worth it in Pathfinder cause the Grappling Condition only gives you a Dex penalty. I would revert to the 3.5 rule where the grappler looses is Dex bonus to AC, and becomes vulnerable to rogues sneak attacks.

My two cents...


Well I clicked the 'flag' button on your and my interpretations, hopefully they'll let us know which is right.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
beej67 wrote:
Well I clicked the 'flag' button on your and my interpretations, hopefully they'll let us know which is right.

Might as well throw this spell in the "request for clarification" vat too:

lockjaw spell

Quote:
You give a creature the ability to use one of its natural attacks to firmly attach itself to an opponent. Choose one of the creature's natural attacks (usually a claw or bite attack). The creature gains the grab ability with that natural attack, including the +4 bonus on combat maneuver checks to start or maintain a grapple. A creature with multiple natural attacks can strike at its grappled opponent with its other natural attacks, but cannot attack any other creature.

Doesn't say anything about taking -20 on the grab attack for lockjaw in order to maintain it's other natural attacks. It just says that for lockjaw you have to keep attacking the same guy.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I'd also like to have a clarification of how exactly the Krakens "Tenacious Grapple" works (with regard to this discussion), since the Kraken never gets the grappled condition (which baiscally means it wouldn't have to take the -20. So does it automatically hold a creature with only one tentacle?)


With it's other power Rend Ship, it can hold a whole ship with 4 tentacles, so seems the intent of Tenacious Grapple is to let it hold an individual with one without the -20CMB on the constrict, yea. Lockjaw seems to define an exception to the grab, too, by specifying that it can continue with other attack despite grappling (if grab let it do that on it's own, it wouldn't need to specify it)

If grab does actually let you grab/constrict/release as a free action on a hit without a penalty on the CMB roll, then nevermind the Octopus, check out the Decapus from Bestiary II. Twice the tentacle power of the Octo - 8 Tentacles 2d4+3, with 2d4+4 constrict. That would be effectivly 16 potential attacks for a possible 32d4+56 damage in a single full attack action, for a CR4 creature, with the only mitigation a -2 on the hits (if it can't also do the release as a free action trick). Bestiary II also updates grab to be effective on same sized creatures as well.

Dark Archive

beej67 wrote:
beej67 wrote:
Well I clicked the 'flag' button on your and my interpretations, hopefully they'll let us know which is right.

Might as well throw this spell in the "request for clarification" vat too:

lockjaw spell

Quote:
You give a creature the ability to use one of its natural attacks to firmly attach itself to an opponent. Choose one of the creature's natural attacks (usually a claw or bite attack). The creature gains the grab ability with that natural attack, including the +4 bonus on combat maneuver checks to start or maintain a grapple. A creature with multiple natural attacks can strike at its grappled opponent with its other natural attacks, but cannot attack any other creature.

Doesn't say anything about taking -20 on the grab attack for lockjaw in order to maintain it's other natural attacks. It just says that for lockjaw you have to keep attacking the same guy.

BTW, this is what makes Lockjaw a great spell to slap on a monk who already has improved grapple, since the monk's unarmed strike "...is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons." First attack with grab, then continue your flurry on the, now grappled, opponent.


Happler wrote:
BTW, this is what makes Lockjaw a great spell to slap on a monk who already has improved grapple, since the monk's unarmed strike "...is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons." First attack with grab, then continue your flurry on the, now grappled, opponent.

Oh contra-ire ... Under Asphesteros's interpretation of the word "normal," the monk would have to make that grapple check at -20, which wallpapers the spell.

Same for the Kraken.

Which is why some game developer needs to set the record straight.


Not at all - I said in the last post - the spell makes a point of making a specific exception - the part you highlighted - letting them use the other attacks but only on the target grappled. Kraken likewise makes specific exceptions, one for boats, the other for creatures.

The fact the rule writes in excpetions means it's not the normal way it works

I agree, they need to clean up the rules. Even with multiple printings and eratta, there's still a lot of bad language in there. Look at grapple on P206 (*can't* cast spells with somatic components while grappled) vs. grapple on 201 (*can* cast a somatic spell while grappled). This is just like that.

Where there's logical contradictions like that you have to look at the rest of the rules and see which text is controlling by which have more support.

You can't just take two words out of paragraphes of rules and run wild with it despite what everything else says. When you do that, yea, you get crazy results like a CR4 Decopus doing 50-100 points of damage from 16 rolls in a single round.


Nope. Read the spell. The spell doesn't grant any more exceptions than the Grab ability does. It doesn't specify you don't take a -20 penalty on your grab check, and the reason it doesn't specify is that nobody's supposed to take that -20 penalty on their grab check unless they want to avoid the grappled condition. The spell just says the monk gets the "grab" ability, which has the same "as normal" language you're talking about forcing a -20 if you don't want to lose your other attacks. It works the same way as Giant Octopus wit multiple natural attacks.

Exact
Same
Way

So either the GO doesn't get the -20, or the monk does, because they're the same exact scenario - a grab during a full round attack with multiple attacks. I'd love to see Paizo tell us which, since this thread has turned into the Internet Last Word Wins Game. Which I'm sure we can both agree is a bit of a waste of both our time.


Okay, so here's my try on getting the last word: I'm with Benchak on that one ("that one" being the discussion the thread started with, or was it "turned into after some posts"?).

GM can restrict Free Actions, and she better had to do it with the GO. So the octopus can grab-hold-constrict with one tentacle and then lash out at the held opponent with the others, but no assembly-line grappling ((c) Benchak) and especially multiple constricting in one round. As I see it, constrict takes some time, but of course that's fluff and not RAW.


Happler wrote:


BTW, this is what makes Lockjaw a great spell to slap on a monk who already has improved grapple, since the monk's unarmed strike "...is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons." First attack with grab, then continue your flurry on the, now grappled, opponent.

Sorry mate, monk have natural weapons, not natural attacks, two distinct different things.

natural weapons have iterative attacks
natural attacks work with another principal (primary/secondary at full BAB/-5)


That's a good point Twig, and Nixda

I was wrong about the decapus - it just has a 'tentacles' attack, not multiple tentacle attacks like the giant octo.

Dark Archive

Twig wrote:
Happler wrote:


BTW, this is what makes Lockjaw a great spell to slap on a monk who already has improved grapple, since the monk's unarmed strike "...is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons." First attack with grab, then continue your flurry on the, now grappled, opponent.

Sorry mate, monk have natural weapons, not natural attacks, two distinct different things.

natural weapons have iterative attacks
natural attacks work with another principal (primary/secondary at full BAB/-5)

From the PRD

Quote:
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet).

So, attacks made with natural weapons are natural attacks. The monks unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon for spells that effect that. Thus, per RAW, attacks made with a monks unarmed strike count as natural attacks for spells and effects that can enhance them. Note that it says "such as" and not "limited to".


It's confusing semantics but Twig's got it for the reasons he noted -

The rule doesn't say that Monk's attacks are considered natural weapons for all purposes, allowing you to extend it to also counting as a natural attack for spells affecting natural attacks. The rule specifially limits it to counting as a natural weapons for spells affecting natural weapons.

PRD
"A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."

Your quote is defning what a natural attack is (something that encompasses genuine natural weapons), not what a monk's unarmed attack is (something that can be considered a natural weapon for specific purposes).


Asphesteros wrote:

It's confusing semantics but Twig's got it for the reasons he noted -

The rule doesn't say that Monk's attacks are considered natural weapons for all purposes, allowing you to extend it to also counting as a natural attack for spells affecting natural attacks. The rule specifially limits it to counting as a natural weapons for spells affecting natural weapons.

So?

If your interpretation of the words "as normal" is correct, then the monk (or other recipient of Lockjaw) who doesn't take a -20 on his grapple check loses the rest of his attacks that round, no matter where those attacks came from, because he has magically retroactively changed his action from a "full attack action" to a "standard action to grapple" and he's done.

If you're right about the GO having to take a -20 penalty on his grab in order to keep attacking, then the monk (or whoever) also has to take a -20 penalty on his grab in order to keep attacking. The spell doesn't change the words in the Grab rule.

Your interpretation bones Lockjaw. And most other monsters with the grab skill. The -20 penalty is clearly there as an option to avoid assuming the grappled condition yourself, not as the only way to keep the rest of your attacks because of the words "as normal."

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ.

I've been browsing the grapple/grab/constrict threads for a couple of days now, hoping for an answer somewhere. These threads started with the broken 3.5 Improved Grab discussion (and constrict) and have continued unabated for over 2 years.

Developers...please...clean up the Grapple / Grab / Constrict / Rake mess so that we can all move on and attack our PCs with tentacled foes and lashing tails.

There's a lot of opinion, but no one solid solution. I've spent hours reading everyone's interpretations, arguments about RAW, positions on RAI, suggestions for houserules, etc.

Please, take the octopus, or any of the many other Grab/Constrict monsters in Bestiary and Bestiary II and give us a multi-round example of how this is supposed to work. Take a creature with Rake, and give us a round-for-round example. Take 2 characters and 3 NPCs and provide us with a play-by-play of multiple-opponent grapple situations.

Please.


Happler wrote:
Twig wrote:
Happler wrote:


BTW, this is what makes Lockjaw a great spell to slap on a monk who already has improved grapple, since the monk's unarmed strike "...is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons." First attack with grab, then continue your flurry on the, now grappled, opponent.

Sorry mate, monk have natural weapons, not natural attacks, two distinct different things.

natural weapons have iterative attacks
natural attacks work with another principal (primary/secondary at full BAB/-5)

From the PRD

Quote:
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet).
So, attacks made with natural weapons are natural attacks. The monks unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon for spells that effect that. Thus, per RAW, attacks made with a monks unarmed strike count as natural attacks for spells and effects that can enhance them. Note that it says "such as" and not "limited to".

James Jacobs clearly stated that the improved natural attacks feat doest work for monks. (since natural weapons /= natural attacks)

Confusing semantics indeed.

link

Dark Archive

Twig wrote:
Happler wrote:
Twig wrote:
Happler wrote:


BTW, this is what makes Lockjaw a great spell to slap on a monk who already has improved grapple, since the monk's unarmed strike "...is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons." First attack with grab, then continue your flurry on the, now grappled, opponent.

Sorry mate, monk have natural weapons, not natural attacks, two distinct different things.

natural weapons have iterative attacks
natural attacks work with another principal (primary/secondary at full BAB/-5)

From the PRD

Quote:
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet).
So, attacks made with natural weapons are natural attacks. The monks unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon for spells that effect that. Thus, per RAW, attacks made with a monks unarmed strike count as natural attacks for spells and effects that can enhance them. Note that it says "such as" and not "limited to".

James Jacobs clearly stated that the improved natural attacks feat doest work for monks. (since natural weapons /= natural attacks)

Confusing semantics indeed.

link

You are correct, this is because they are going to add an exception for it in the feat:

From that link:
James Jacobs wrote:

HA!

And I'm flip flopping AGAIN!

Jason crunched his numbers and the official errata is this—the Improved Natural Attack feat can not be applied to unarmed strike. We'll be issuing an errata for that feat that adds this sentence to the feat:

"Improved Natural Attack can not be applied to unarmed strikes."

Unarmed strikes ARE still treated as natural weapons for most effects (particularly for the spell magic fang and for amulets of magic fang), but the Improved Natural Attack feat is an exception to that rule.

So! There ya go! Official errata! Sorry it took so long to nail it down.

See, they are adding it as an exception to the way that the rules would normally work.

Scarab Sages

Snorter wrote:

I also believe creatures with Grab, should have the additional option to perform Improved Grapple, rather than Grab, which requires them to match the target's Full AC. In the case of creatures who do not damage via brute strength, but via acid, paralysis, shock, etc, it should not be required that they punch through solid steel, or find a gap in the target's full-plate, for them to hold on to that target.

This concept got a partial thumbs-up from SKR, when I brought it up in a thread about oozes.

As a further thought on the above theme; I believe there needs to be a distinction made between;

a creature successfully grappling a foe to a standstill, and,

a creature successfully holding onto a beast and being carried along, and

a creature grabbing a willing ally, eg to save them from a fall.

The RAW attempt to cover the first situation, but not the latter two.
In Dune, Paul Muad'dib climbs the side of a mile-long sandworm, and steers it through the desert. How many HD did that worm have? How much BAB? If a PC wanted to perform the same feat, I doubt anyone would force them to beat a sandworm's CMD to 'grapple' it. Or, if they somehow did beat it, that they'd allow the PC to throw it over their shoulder, or put it in a headlock...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Paizo sure loves their exceptions! They make more exceptions than any other developer I've seen before.

Dark Archive

Ravingdork wrote:
Paizo sure loves their exceptions! They make more exceptions than any other developer I've seen before.

Er, the monster/NPC mechanics in 4E are completely based on individuality and exceptions... and I'd say the same about AD&D, too.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Asgetrion wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Paizo sure loves their exceptions! They make more exceptions than any other developer I've seen before.
Er, the monster/NPC mechanics in 4E are completely based on individuality and exceptions... and I'd say the same about AD&D, too.

Well, I'm not real big on either of those editions, so my statement stands true (considering I'm talking about my own experience).


What a mess this thread is! It seems clear to me the grab and grapple rules don't work for a creature like a giant octopus and it is silly to try to apply RAW to that monster. A giant octopus can only hold one creature in its tentacles at a time? Silliness! It needs to take -20 on every constrict check because it needs to use its whole body to effectively constrict an opponent? Silliness! This is a massive creature with powerful and long tentacles that operate pretty independently, and every depiction in fantasy has them grappling several enemies at once. This is a place for the GM to ignore the rules and just have fun. As long as the PCs don't get killed, the rule semantics don't matter. So I guess one lesson is use this monster for flavor and not as a critical combat that needs to be run in a perfectly rule-certifiable way.

101 to 135 of 135 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Grab & the grapple actions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.