| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
A Dire Tiger has Grab as a Special Attack. Form the Bestiary:
Melee 2 claws +18 (2d4+8 plus grab), bite +18 (2d6+8/19–20 plus grab)
If the Tiger hits with both claws *and* the bite, does it grab (grapple) twice? Does the creature being grappled have to break both grapples?
If the tiger chooses to only grab with say the 2 claws, it can then do rake and bite damage, right?
-- david
Papa.DRB
I don't think you can double-grapple an opponent, but the rules don't specifically disallow it.
Note that, in your example, one of the grapples would end on the tiger's next turn anyways (since it requires a standard action to maintain a grapple).
Also note that it is not allowed for two creatures to maintain two grapples against a third creature; when two creatures grapple a third creature, one is the "main" grappler and the other is using the Aid Another action.
----
I'm not sure about your other question -- what do you mean by "only grab"? At any rate, if the tiger begins the turn grappling an opponent, it can either (a) end the grapple and attack normally (with two claws and a bite, say), or (b) maintain the grapple (either doing claw damage or pinning on a successful grapple check) and additionally make two free rake attacks.
One of the nice things Paizo did in doing general house cleaning around the 3.5 rules set is they made a bunch of things conditions, being Grappled is one of them. When you are grappled you are grappled, you can't get more grappled by a second grapple (well you do but it is accounted for by Aid Another if another individual is involved).
Now in the case of the tiger what can happen is should it happen to fail the Combat Maneuver Check to start the grapple it can try again with its next attack.
For rake it needs to begin the turn grappling, that is the turn after it grabs someone. The rake only applies to the 2 claws. It can chose to Bite as part of a successful grapple check the next turn.
Turn 1 tiger: Tiger Pounces (2 Claws + 1 Bite), hits with at least one attack and succeeds a CM check
Turn 1 prey: fails to break grapple
Turn 2 tiger: Rake (2 Claw Attacks), CM check if successful can chose to damage with 1 claw or 1 bite.
Tunr 2: prey: ... likely dead.
Turn 1 tiger: Tiger Pounces (2 Claws + 1 Bite), hits with at least one attack and succeeds a CM check
(Note that a tiger can also make two rake attacks as part of a pounce as well, regardless of whether any grapple attempts succeed.)
Are you sure? This came up as a topic of discussion along with the multiple grapple questions last night.
-- david
Papa.DRB
Turn 1 tiger: Tiger Pounces (2 Claws + 1 Bite), hits with at least one attack and succeeds a CM check(Note that a tiger can also make two rake attacks as part of a pounce as well, regardless of whether any grapple attempts succeed.)
Are you sure? This came up as a topic of discussion along with the multiple grapple questions last night.
Yea, saw that, but in order to do Rakes, doesn't the tiger and prey have to have the grappled condition already, so you can't do both in the same round?
-- david
Papa.DRB
Pounce (Ex) When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).Are you sure? This came up as a topic of discussion along with the multiple grapple questions last night.
Yea, saw that, but in order to do Rakes, doesn't the tiger and prey have to have the grappled condition already, so you can't do both in the same round?
Well, that's one interpretation, I suppose. But then why would they say that you can rake on a charge when it's clearly not possible (since you can't really charge and grapple in the same turn)?
Yea, saw that, but in order to do Rakes, doesn't the tiger and prey have to have the grappled condition already, so you can't do both in the same round?Well, that's one interpretation, I suppose. But then why would they say that you can rake on a charge when it's clearly not possible (since you can't really charge and grapple in the same turn)?
Hogarth has it right. There are at least two conditions in which a creature can rake, not one. (1) the round after it begins a grapple and (2) if it charges and has the pounce ability.
*ninjad while double checking rules*
I forgot about that part in Pounce thanks.
Yes, as part of the Pounce (charge) it gets the Rake. The grapple is started by the Grab ability of the non-rake claw or bite attacks and can be combined with the Pounce.
Rake (Ex) A creature with this special attack gains extra natural attacks under certain conditions, typically when it grapples its foe.
Under certain conditions, like Pounce saying you get them.
*Note to self, don't get Pounce by a Tiger*
1st round Tiger: Pounce (charge straight line, min 10 ft move), 2 claws + grab (ex), 1 bite + grab (ex), 2 claw (rakes)
1st round prey: Praying that most of that missed.
I would point out that the rakes do not have Grab.
I agree with you. I was presenting arguments from one of my players. He, the wizard, should have been a conjuration specialist instead of an evoker, but oh well.
Thanks all.
-- david
Papa.DRB
Yea, saw that, but in order to do Rakes, doesn't the tiger and prey have to have the grappled condition already, so you can't do both in the same round?Well, that's one interpretation, I suppose. But then why would they say that you can rake on a charge when it's clearly not possible (since you can't really charge and grapple in the same turn)?
I let large things grapple more than one smaller sized, the Chuul have big claws, they are a large creature, so they should be able to hold one creature in each claw, (medium or smaller) plus they can free pass to their mouth tentacles for grapple/paralyze.
Perhaps it should have a Multi-grapple ability?
I let large things grapple more than one smaller sized, the Chuul have big claws, they are a large creature, so they should be able to hold one creature in each claw, (medium or smaller) plus they can free pass to their mouth tentacles for grapple/paralyze.
Perhaps it should have a Multi-grapple ability?
I always figured that's what the "grab at a -20 penalty" option was for (although it doesn't really work as written in PFRPG).
I always figured that's what the "grab at a -20 penalty" option was for (although it doesn't really work as written in PFRPG).I let large things grapple more than one smaller sized, the Chuul have big claws, they are a large creature, so they should be able to hold one creature in each claw, (medium or smaller) plus they can free pass to their mouth tentacles for grapple/paralyze.
Perhaps it should have a Multi-grapple ability?
Is that under the grapple rules, I must have missed it...-20 seems REALLY off...I would think maybe -5, like an iterative attack...
Is that under the grapple rules, I must have missed it...-20 seems REALLY off...I would think maybe -5, like an iterative attack...I always figured that's what the "grab at a -20 penalty" option was for (although it doesn't really work as written in PFRPG).I let large things grapple more than one smaller sized, the Chuul have big claws, they are a large creature, so they should be able to hold one creature in each claw, (medium or smaller) plus they can free pass to their mouth tentacles for grapple/paralyze.
Perhaps it should have a Multi-grapple ability?
It's mentioned in the grab ability in the Universal Monster Rules.
It's mentioned in the grab ability in the Universal Monster Rules.Is that under the grapple rules, I must have missed it...-20 seems REALLY off...I would think maybe -5, like an iterative attack...I always figured that's what the "grab at a -20 penalty" option was for (although it doesn't really work as written in PFRPG).I let large things grapple more than one smaller sized, the Chuul have big claws, they are a large creature, so they should be able to hold one creature in each claw, (medium or smaller) plus they can free pass to their mouth tentacles for grapple/paralyze.
Perhaps it should have a Multi-grapple ability?
Ah I see, I'll have to look that up again tonight
Is that under the grapple rules, I must have missed it...-20 seems REALLY off...I would think maybe -5, like an iterative attack...
It used to work better (or worse, depending on how you look at it) in 3.5, when monsters could get some really big grapple check bonuses for size.
Concidering the bonuses to CMB due to size are 1/4th value they used to be (colossal being an exception at only 1/2) -5 doesn't seem out of place, or -10 even. I for one would agree with -5 and would feel ok giving the few colossal creatures an advantage here.