Fairly simple question that doesn't seem to have any clear rules: if you grapple someone, do you still have a 'free hand'? Do you have to grapple them with only one hand and take a penalty on the grapple check if you want to maintain the bonus of snapping turtle or crane fighting style? How would people interpret this?
Yes, I'd say if you grapple with both they are both not free.
|
The game assumes that a grappled creature cannot use a two-handed weapon ; so it's pretty safe to assume that you are effectively losing the ability to wield one, but there are no more rules by RAW to detail what you lose or if your hands aren't free (you can even get to 3 grapple checks per round with feats, add to this archetypes that don't give you the grappled condition when grappling a creature, and you are now pinning 3 creatures all the while hitting with a claymore - thus, having your hands free).
Just roll with it !
Just roll with it !
I want to, but I'm experiencing RAW guilt at the idea of a Maneuver Master with TWF chopping away with a weapon in right hand while grappling with left hand (which can give him even more chopping from his right hand) while also kneeing the grappled enemy in the guts and defending himself with a 'free hand.' Oh well, comes down to my prospective GM in the end.
With a single level in monk comes the ability to make attacks with 'generic' unarmed strikes, plus the ability to cast magic weapon on your unarmed strike, so the question of weapons isn't the problem... but flavor-wise I still want to have a sword. I'm actually dipping into Maneuver Master with a Battle Oracle that has insanely pumped up grapple. I guess technically according to RAW I could indeed grapple without a limb, make my sword strikes two-handed if I use them before the grappling attempt, throw an enchanted flying knee in there with TWF, and then change grip to one-handed as soon as I'm done attacking so that I'd still have a free hand for defense.
It seems like a huge rules oversight that they never actually got around to saying "oh, yeah, to grapple you do actually have to be using an arm or something." They DO say that you can't make two-handed attacks once you actually have the grapple established, but with flurry of maneuver in play that's not at all the same thing. Maybe I could float the idea with my GM of my 'grapple' as 'holding' an enemy by smacking them around with controlling blows and quick push/pull grabs instead of holding.
The plan is if beginning my turn with a foe already grappled (snapping turtle), a rapid-grappler flurry-of-maneuvers full attack action by level 13 could be: maintain grapple (sword hit) / maintain grapple (sword hit) / sword attack / sword attack (-5) / unarmed strike, plus one more sword attack if I'm using divine power. Only one of those 5 (or 6) attacks has an iterative -5, and only one of the two maintain grapple checks has to succeed to keep the grapple in place for the next round. If the enemy isn't grappled yet, its still 2 or 3 sword attacks and an unarmed strike while starting a grapple at the same time.
|
From the PRD:
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. A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.
When you grapple, you gain the grappled condition, which prevents you from taking any action that requires two hands to perform. No attacking with Two-Handed weapons unless you can wield them in one hand.
So you could full attack with your Two-handed weapon, and then grapple, sure, but the devs did clarify somewhere that grapple assumes you're grabbing them with one hand... I'll see if I can find something.
|
|
Nope couldn't find anything. Still, I don't think there's anything particularly broken about full attacking with a two-handed weapon and then using your extra maneuver from Flurry of Maneuvers to grapple someone. You couldn't maintain the grapple to damage them with your two-handed sword though, the maintain ability specifically says:"Damage: You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal."
Since you start the round with the grappled condition, you could choose not to maintain, full attack, and then grapple them again, but your combo wouldn't be rules legal.
Yes, that's the one limitation which means that I would need to use a one-handed weapon with grip switching - the question then comes down to how flurry of maneuvers works. If it works like any other full-attack-action attack that you use in sequence with your other attacks, then you could still make two-handed attacks before attempting the grapple, but not if you started the action with the enemy already grappled. Its not really that big a difference, it just means a little bonus damage from your weapon strikes as compensation for not being in flailing-mode yet.
|
|
Since it's done as part of a full attack action, and you could choose whether to attack with say, a rapier in your main hand or a dagger in your offhand first if two weapon fighting, I don't believe there's anything in the rules that would prevent you from making that grapple either before or after your weapon attack (your choice).
The rules I recall state that a grapple isn't necessarily a wrestle, it's any action that uses your body to hinder an opponent. A leg hold would be a grapple. Grabbing a person's arm to keep them from leaving is a grapple.
That said, if you have a saw on you, you can get two free hands from any humanoid corpse.
Sweet! Oh &*#% wait, I have to wield the hands...