So playing an empty handed monk (for the luls) and finding that one of my most effective tactics to the team has been to grapple big dangerous things and pin them. Even got the pleasure of chucking an advanced troll off of a cliff...
Anyway, big bossy creature fight in an adventure module. Large creature with 4 claws and rend nearly KO'd the fighter in one round.
I (somehow) managed to grapple the sucker. We both gain the grappled condition...
Grappled: A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. 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... [abridged]
1) So does this mean that it can't make a full round action to attack the heck out of the fighter?
2) Or does the wording simply imply that it can't take any action that requires 2 hands to work in unison (such as fire a bow). In which case it could full round attack... but I would prevent the use of its rend...
3) A thematic interpretation would imply I disable one of its hand/combat appendages, meaning that it could full round attack... but only with 3 claws (and not being able to get rend). Ie, monk on the back bending back one arm and holding onto its neck as it savages the other combatants.
4) Or would you always disable all hands but 1? (somewhat nonsensical)
5) A literal interpretation would imply that grappling has no effect on non-hand appendages. So if I were to grapple an octopus it'd still have 8 tentacles to do whatever it willed. (personally, not in favor of illogical rules lawyer interpretations).
Now discuss, internets.
So playing an empty handed monk (for the luls) and finding that one of my most effective tactics to the team has been to grapple big dangerous things and pin them. Even got the pleasure of chucking an advanced troll off of a cliff...
..
Anyway, big bossy creature fight in an adventure module. Large creature with 4 claws and rend nearly KO'd the fighter in one round.
..
I (somehow) managed to grapple the sucker. We both gain the grappled condition...
..
Grappled: A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. 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... [abridged]
..
5) A literal interpretation would imply that grappling has no effect on non-hand appendages. So if I were to grapple an octopus it'd still have 8 tentacles to do whatever it willed. (personally, not in favor of illogical rules lawyer interpretations).Now discuss, internets.
That isn't as illogical or rules lawyer-y as you imply. The rules are based around your typical PC, who happen to be humanoid and have 2 hands. A creature without hands RAW wouldn't seem to be particularly bothered by the grapple except the penalty to attack. And to be completely honest, things that have rake actually get better (via free action when starting a round in a grapple) when they are in a grapple situation. Or the creatures that have the option to maintain a grapple with a -20 but not be considered grappled themselves (I think it was some large tentacle creature for that, can't look it up).
Also I checked the PRD and the d20pfsrd and it looks like your quote is off in regards to the target (I'm not seeing the sentance before your "abridged" in either of those two places for grapple btw):
Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you.
That would mean as long as the attack didn't require 2 hands to make (2H weapon) you could make as many attacks as your routine allowed. 8 tentacles would indeed be available to do whatever it wants with. Basically you are keeping it rooted in place and providing a penalty if it decides to ignore you.
1) No, it can attack anything within its reach.
2) Yes the bow is out of the question, no the rend isn't. Rend is usually caused by 2 separate claw attacks (separate light weapon attacks), and the additional damage isn't a separate attack, it is just added damage as per James Jacobs. This is still single natural (AKA Light) attacks so they wouldn't be stopped.
3) No again, the rules don't back that up. When being grappled it is allowed to do anything it could as described by my quote above.
4) No.
Also I checked the PRD and the d20pfsrd and it looks like your quote is off in regards to the target (I'm not seeing the sentance before your "abridged" in either of those two places for grapple btw):
It's the grappled condition in the glossary of the PRD.
2) Yes the bow is out of the question, no the rend isn't. Rend is usually caused by 2 separate claw attacks (separate light weapon attacks), and the additional damage isn't a separate attack, it is just added damage as per James Jacobs. This is still single natural (AKA Light) attacks so they wouldn't be stopped.
And now Rend in the Universal Monster Rules:
Rend (Ex) If it hits with two or more natural attacks in 1 round, a creature with the rend special attack can cause tremendous damage by latching onto the opponent's body and tearing flesh. This attack deals an additional amount of damage, but no more than once per round. The type of attacks that must hit and the additional damage are included in the creature's description. The additional damage is usually equal to the damage caused by one of the attacks plus 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus.Called an attack... but yes the point being it isn't another attack roll... but it does read like an action (an immediate, causal one) resulting from multiple attacks hitting. Thematically, it is using multiple hands/claws whatever in unison to apply extra leverage and shred the target.
So... logically is this not an action requiring 2 hands/claws?
Unless we're going to count claws as not being like hands. In which case if I grapple a skeleton with a great sword he can still hit me with it because skeletons have claws not hands...
Also I checked the PRD and the d20pfsrd and it looks like your quote is off in regards to the target (I'm not seeing the sentance before your "abridged" in either of those two places for grapple btw):
It's the grappled condition in the glossary of the PRD.
2) Yes the bow is out of the question, no the rend isn't. Rend is usually caused by 2 separate claw attacks (separate light weapon attacks), and the additional damage isn't a separate attack, it is just added damage as per James Jacobs. This is still single natural (AKA Light) attacks so they wouldn't be stopped.
And now Rend in the Universal Monster Rules:
Rend (Ex) If it hits with two or more natural attacks in 1 round, a creature with the rend special attack can cause tremendous damage by latching onto the opponent's body and tearing flesh. This attack deals an additional amount of damage, but no more than once per round. The type of attacks that must hit and the additional damage are included in the creature's description. The additional damage is usually equal to the damage caused by one of the attacks plus 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus.Called an attack... but yes the point being it isn't another attack roll... but it does read like an action (an immediate, causal one) resulting from multiple attacks hitting. Thematically, it is using multiple hands/claws whatever in unison to apply extra leverage and shred the target.
So... logically is this not an action requiring 2 hands/claws?
Unless we're going to count claws as not being like hands. In which case if I grapple a skeleton with a great sword he can still hit me with it because skeletons have claws not hands...
The ability doesn't state it takes 2 claws to do, and the restriction says hands regardless. The ability could proc off of a later claw too. Mechanically all it requires is two separate claw attacks on the same opponent, not that the claws have to work in unison at the same time. If the creature had a claw/claw/bite and only made one claw successsfully, but then made an AoO with the claw against that target, the rend would occur even though 1 attack was made during the AoO. The rend damage would occur and be added to that second successful attack as it was what fulfilled the conditions.
Thematically it doesn't matter what the fluff says, the mechanics don't say you need to use 2 claws at same time, let alone hands, to get rend off. It says when you make 2 distinct and successful claw attacks during a round, extra damage is inflicted.
Logic and gaming don't always co exist. Might want to stop playing this game, the one with magic that defies logic on a regular basis. Mechanically things work the way they are stated to, oft times illogically, "for balance" typically.
As for your skeleton example, it has no bearing on the rend rules, a two handed sword specifically needs 2 hands to work and wield so it is prohibited in grapple. A creature with claws making natural attacks that incidentally cause more damage if 2 hit, isn't the same as requiring 2 simultaneous attacks or using those limbs at the same time (like required to use a 2 handed weapon). It is obvious you don't like it, but that doesn't change what RAW states, so it would work.
The ability doesn't state it takes 2 claws to do, and the restriction says hands regardless.
The type of attacks that must hit and the additional damage are included in the creature's description.
So something having rend (2 claws xDx+x) isn't stating it's using 2 claws?
Two-Weapon Rend (Combat)
Striking with both of your weapons simultaneously, you can use them to deliver devastating wounds.
Prerequisites: Dex 17, Double Slice, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: If you hit an opponent with both your primary hand and your off-hand weapon, you deal an additional 1d10 points of damage plus 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier. You can only deal this additional damage once each round.
in the 'fluff' section of the feat but whatever...
Logic and gaming don't always co exist. Might want to stop playing this game, the one with magic that defies logic on a regular basis. Mechanically things work the way they are stated to, oft times illogically, "for balance" typically.
I'll admit I have a inclination to view Pathfinder as a story with rules to give it order and make it functionally collaborative, and less like a video game abstraction put onto paper. And I think that's more in the spirit of the game itself... if James Jacobs and the rest of the Paizo guys thought that theme and logic could be sacrificed, they'd just play 4th edition and never bothered making Pathfinder in the first place.
So yes, when I see the rend rules in effect with a girallon combating the fighter, I don't see 4 sweeps of claws and the forth just spraying additional blood because a counter filled up in 6 seconds. I see the girallon savaging the fighter with all 4 claws and attempting to pull him apart. And if grappling a smart girallon can keep him from swinging a two handed hammer, then why shouldn't I disrupt its coordination enough to keep it from draw and quartering my comrade?
And personally, I really like Pathfinder's magic. They did an excellent job creating sensible rules, stuck to them, and put a lot of attention in dealing with some very reasonable issues such as 'why don't we resurrect everyone so no one ever dies.'
Two-Weapon Rend (Combat)
Hey, that's a feat and not the somewhat thematically similar Rend monster ability.
IMHO: It seems pretty clear that the intent of the rules is that grappling with something with really good natural attacks isn't a great idea. Since you've given up on arguing RAW and are more working RAI, I think it's relevant that reading the rules as 'Rend works' would be in line with that design principle.
Two-Weapon Rend (Combat)
Hey, that's a feat and not the somewhat thematically similar Rend monster ability.
IMHO: It seems pretty clear that the intent of the rules is that grappling with something with really good natural attacks isn't a great idea. Since you've given up on arguing RAW and are more working RAI, I think it's relevant that reading the rules as 'Rend works' would be in line with that design principle.
Yes I know- I had a line that said 'And here's two weapon rend, which is rending with weapons heavily implying that the two are used at once.' But I apparently pasted over it when I put in the feat.
And I haven't given up on the RAW- I'm saying that what is written implies a simulation. The game exists on both the story and mechanical levels. So I think it's important to look at both aspects, and how one influences the other.
I'm following the grammatical logic of rending dealing extra damage if X hit a single target in one round- I'm just really curious what you guys are seeing if said monsters 4th swing in 6 seconds hurts so much more- And saying it's an abstraction is a half answer- It's an abstraction of what?
Two-Weapon Rend (Combat)
Hey, that's a feat and not the somewhat thematically similar Rend monster ability.
IMHO: It seems pretty clear that the intent of the rules is that grappling with something with really good natural attacks isn't a great idea. Since you've given up on arguing RAW and are more working RAI, I think it's relevant that reading the rules as 'Rend works' would be in line with that design principle.
Yes I know- I had a line that said 'And here's two weapon rend, which is rending with weapons heavily implying that the two are used at once.' But I apparently pasted over it when I put in the feat.
And I haven't given up on the RAW- I'm saying that what is written implies a simulation. The game exists on both the story and mechanical levels. So I think it's important to look at both aspects, and how one influences the other.
I'm following the grammatical logic of rending dealing extra damage if X hit a single target in one round- I'm just really curious what you guys are seeing if said monsters 4th swing in 6 seconds hurts so much more- And saying it's an abstraction is a half answer- It's an abstraction of what?
I can appreciate your view on the subject, but as this is the Rules Forum, where people come to see how things work by RAW your questions are kinda off topic. Not saying they aren't valid, but more appropriate for another forum as we are getting off the "how things work" and into the reasoning for why they shouldn't work, as you put it "logically." That gets into the house rules and Rule 0 domain.