Diego: Yup, that is what I mean. :)
- Gauss
|
As I was adding it to my while you were typing your reply and maybe you have missed it, I repeat this piece:
Third issue: "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)."
AFAIK (I am not English native) "as well" mean "in addition to (something in the preceding paragraph)", so this text could be read:
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 (the amount is given in the creature's descriptive text) in addition to the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold.
|
A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. 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).Huh?
Successful hold does no EXTRA damage. Why is there extra damage? Where is it coming from? Why does constrict override this imaginary extra damage? So if I don't have constrict, if I maintain, I get free damage from the attack that started the grapple but only after the round grappled initiated. Okay, no problems there. But here comes constrict damage. Why is it otherwise? So if I don't do auto damage, I get constrict damage as well? WTF? Why would be "as well"? Why not just say, if you don't do auto damage from natural attack, you do constrict damage (if creature has constrict)?
Somebody break down the last parts of grab. It's...badly worded.
Actually I find the rule fairly clear while your question is pretty confused The rule say that the grab deal no extra damage unless the grappling creature has constrict, but you rant about an extra damage that not exist. Exactly what is your problem?
There are creatures with appendages that do no damage but that can grapple. So the rule specify that they don’t get extra damage but only the damage normally dealt by that appendage.
If the creature has the conscription ability it get to deal the constriction damage.
Then I will present you the Behir:
Behir
Melee bite +15 (2d6+9 plus grab)
Special Attacks breath weapon (20-foot line, 7d6 electricity damage, Reflex DC 20 for half, usable every 1d4 rounds), constrict (2d6+9), rake (6 claws +14, 1d4+6), swallow whole (2d8+9 bludgeoning damage, AC 16, 10 hp)
This guy grab you with its bite, so when grappling, if it maintain the grapple:
It get is bite damage by maintaining the...
Where is the text that a creature cannot use an attack to maintain a grapple to deal damage, but not again with grab? I can't seem to find it. If that exists somewhere, then the word is better, but still confusing.
It'd make more sense if they said constrict damage first, and then say if the creature does not have constrict, it does damage using the attack that initiated the grapple a 2nd time (1st time is from maintaining grapple, 2nd time from grab's text of 2nd damage from maintaining a grapple).
My bad on the rake/pounce thing. I was focusing on the rake rules which state that they only occur if you were grappling at the start of your turn, while pounce specifically calls out as giving you full attacks on the charge plus any rake attacks.
Seems rather circuitous phrasing. They probably should have splurged and put in a line in the rake rules about them occurring on pounce.
It'd make more sense if they said constrict damage first, and then say if the creature does not have constrict, it does damage using the attack that initiated the grapple a 2nd time (1st time is from maintaining grapple, 2nd time from grab's text of 2nd damage from maintaining a grapple).
I think this is just a very clumsy phrasing on the idea that when maintaining the grapple after grabbing something, if it uses the damage maneuver (as opposed to pin, move, etc) use the damage of whatever attack grabbed.
So if you have a bite with grab, and two claws with grab, keep track of which one did the grabbing. Especially important if say the bite has poison, or the claws cause bleed, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The English Language:
What happens when you ram German (Saxon) and French (Norman) together and choose grammar rules at random.
It's like a lingual train-wreck.
|
|
Where is the text that a creature cannot use an attack to maintain a grapple to deal damage, but not again with grab? I can't seem to find it. If that exists somewhere, then the word is better, but still confusing.
It'd make more sense if they said constrict damage first, and then say if the creature does not have constrict, it does damage using the attack that initiated the grapple a 2nd time (1st time is from maintaining grapple, 2nd time from grab's text of 2nd damage from maintaining a grapple).
Grapple
... Although both creatures have the grappled condition, you can, as the creature that initiated the grapple, release the grapple as a free action, removing the condition from both you and the target. If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold. ...
Maintaining a grapple is a standard action.
To make an attack you need a standard action or a full round action, as you have already used your standard action you can't attack.Grab is an add-on to the grapple rules, it don't repeat all of them.
The dealing damage part of grab in the next round with the limb is a legacy from 3.5, someone should flag it to get it fixed.
edit: faq'd BYC's first post, hope it get's looked at
|
|
The dealing damage part of grab in the next round with the limb is a legacy from 3.5, someone should flag it to get it fixed.
edit: faq'd BYC's first post, hope it get's looked at
Care to explain how you get to this conclusion?
As I read it, if I have grabbed you with my claw, when I make my grappling check, I get to apply my claw damage if I succeed.
This piece of the rule seem straightforward: "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. "
The dealing damage part of grab in the next round with the limb is a legacy from 3.5, someone should flag it to get it fixed.
edit: faq'd BYC's first post, hope it get's looked at
Care to explain how you get to this conclusion?
As I read it, if I have grabbed you with my claw, when I make my grappling check, I get to apply my claw damage if I succeed.
This piece of the rule seem straightforward: "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. "
So would it get to deal damage, even if it didn't choose to deal damage, but instead to the grapple maneuver move?
The dealing damage part of grab in the next round with the limb is a legacy from 3.5, someone should flag it to get it fixed.Care to explain how you get to this conclusion?
As I read it, if I have grabbed you with my claw, when I make my grappling check, I get to apply my claw damage if I succeed.
This piece of the rule seem straightforward: "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. "
It is important to read that line with the next line, "If it does constrict, it deals constrict damage as well" (paraphrase). It's going back and forth on what happens with and without constrict. The Grab text is fairly carryover from 3.5 (not that it is necessarily incorrect, but the phrasing has a different focus), and essentially says this:
If you succeed on the Grab, there isn't any additional damage from that, unless you have constrict.
The next round, if you maintain, you get to deal damage as the attack that grabbed (instead of say, unarmed strike damage), unless you have constrict and get that as well.
The first part was important in 3.5, because a successful initial grapple check did damage, but does not in Pathfinder. The second part is important because you don't get to use a different natural attack to deal damage (say a Tiger's bite, when it was the claw that grabbed).
The word "automatically" in the second part serves two purposes: it is a restriction on the use of the "damage" option of grapple (to only the natural attack that grabbed), and it is a reminder of that option. I don't believe it was intended as free damage.
Tiger example:
Round 1)
Charge & Pounce
Bite (+ attempt grab) {+2 to hit for charge}
Claw (+ attempt grab)
Claw (+ attempt grab)
Rake (irregardless of grab success)
Rake (irregardless of grab success)
If grab was made at -20:
Make AoOs on other foes, if provoked (such as trying to join the grapple).
Round 2) assuming grabbed
Either:
Maintain Grapple (standard), deal damage (or use move or pin options)
Rake
Rake
Or:
Drop foe
Full round attack
Bite
Claw
Claw
I also don't believe the "automatically" phrase is meant to restrict the grabber to the attack option when maintaining. Think of a cat carrying her kittens by the neck for instance.
Generic Example:
Round 1)
Attack or full-attack
Attempt Grab if a "+grab" attack hit.
If has Constrict, deal extra damage (but read creature Constrict entry, there is some variation)
Complete full-attack if any attacks remain
If grab was made at -20:
Make AoOs on other foes, if provoked (such as trying to join the grapple).
Round 2) assuming grabbed
Either drop or:
Maintain Grapple on a single target (standard), deal damage (or use move or pin options)
Constrict or Swallow Whole if has the ability [or other special ability]