Stupid question as it is late and im sure im not thinking this through clearly, but...
1. can you use it with two-weapon fighting?
2. If you successfuly grapple with the first hit can you finish out your full attack?
3. In subsequent rounds would you be able to maintain the grapple by performing a full attack?
4. would grapple suffer a penalty from iterative attacks?
I ask this cause of the odd mixology of this feat and standard grapple rules.
Grapple is a Standard Action. Unless you have some ability that allows you to use during a Full Attack action or as less than a Standard Action, you cannot Grapple during a Full Attack action.
I take it you haven't read the description of Hamatula Strike.
|
Ok, so I hadn’t. But my statement is no less valid.
After reading your link, I fail to see why this is a question at all. It seems quite clear.
Based on the ruling on Vital Strike, the words attack action when in reference to a feat, really means Standard Action.
Therefore, while you could use this with two-weapon fighting, and continue a full-round action you started and make your immediate grapple check if one of your two-weapon fighting weapons is piercing, any subsequent rounds would be a choice of maintaining the grapple and doing the damage of the weapon that triggered the hamatula strike, or let go of the grapple and do another full attack action.
|
Grapple is a Standard Action. Unless you have some ability that allows you to use during a Full Attack action or as less than a Standard Action, you cannot Grapple during a Full Attack action.
Hamatula Strike is a feat from the Cheliax book that gives what appears to be a free Grapple check after doing damage to your opponent with a Piercing weapon.
1) Looks like it, but the Grapple check would take the standard penalties for not having two hands empty.
2) Only with the weapon that is not involved in the grapple, and as long as the weapon could be used to attack with in a standard frapple.
3) Possibly, but it goes back to the definition of attack action versus attack or standard action.
4) To do damage with the weapon that has impaled your opponent, each grapple check to do damage, if you could do multiple attacks with that weapon, woould take the iterative penalties to each successive grapple check with that weapon.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Paizo has already set the precedent with Vital Strike, that the term attack action is synonymous with standard action.
Actually, "attack action" is a specific type of standard action.
Jason Bulmahn: "Vital Strike is an attack action, which is a type of standard action."
James Jacobs: "Since vital strike requires an attack action (a specific KIND of standard action...)"
The feat does two things, 1 let's you get a grapple with any piercing weapon, two let's you keep damaging with that weapon n even if you normally could not use it ( such as a pole arm)
First the feat doesn't change the grapple maintain rules. This means you can twf hit the target use this feat and finish all your attacks. The grappled condition does not stop iterative attacks. Maintaining does.
The fluff behind the feat though implies your weapon is impailed on the victim though but the mechanics of the feat don't seem to stop you from stabbing them with it.
You cannot maintain a grapple and full attack. ( though monsters with the grab ability can do this )
The grapple condition would penalize your attacks.
3) Possibly, but it goes back to the definition of attack action versus attack or standard action.
Actually, as worded I can't tell how it's supposed to work on subsequent turns.
"While the opponent is impaled, as an attack action you may make a grapple check on your turn at a -4 penalty to damage the opponent with your weapon, even if your weapon cannot normally be used in a grapple."
Does it still take a standard action to continue the impalement (as normal)? If so, how would I have an attack action left over to do damage with my weapon? Is this part of the feat useless unless I have Greater Grapple?
First the feat doesn't change the grapple maintain rules. This means you can twf hit the target use this feat and finish all your attacks. The grappled condition does not stop iterative attacks. Maintaining does.
Grappling someone doesn't stop your iterative attacks, but it does stop actions that require two hands (like TWF, I imagine).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Does it still take a standard action to continue the impalement (as normal)? If so, how would I have an attack action left over to do damage with my weapon? Is this part of the feat useless unless I have Greater Grapple?
Yeah, the ability reads like the author wasn't familiar with Pathfinder grapple rules.
Normally, if you had successfully grappled someone and had a rapier (for example) drawn by the time your next turn started, you could spend a standard action to maintain the grapple and, if successful, you would have the option of dealing damage with said rapier.
That's exactly what would happen if you had someone impaled on your rapier using Hamatula Strike, only the grapple would end because you didn't maintain it. So you're worse off using this feat than not.
This changes if you impale them with a two-handed weapon. Use this feat with a polearm, and you can grapple them with reach, and then damage them again next round with a grapple check instead of a normal attack roll. Which, incidentally, is only going to be helpful against little critters who are hard to hit but easy to use maneuvers against.
3) Possibly, but it goes back to the definition of attack action versus attack or standard action.Actually, as worded I can't tell how it's supposed to work on subsequent turns.
"While the opponent is impaled, as an attack action you may make a grapple check on your turn at a -4 penalty to damage the opponent with your weapon, even if your weapon cannot normally be used in a grapple."
Does it still take a standard action to continue the impalement (as normal)? If so, how would I have an attack action left over to do damage with my weapon? Is this part of the feat useless unless I have Greater Grapple?
First the feat doesn't change the grapple maintain rules. This means you can twf hit the target use this feat and finish all your attacks. The grappled condition does not stop iterative attacks. Maintaining does.Grappling someone doesn't stop your iterative attacks, but it does stop actions that require two hands (like TWF, I imagine).
An Attack Action is a Standard Action; if you want to maintain the impalement it requires a standard action to deal the damage with your weapon. (For example, if I have a Guisarme, or some other piercing weapon, and I succeed on an Impalement check, I can attempt to deal damage with a -4 penalty on the grapple check, dealing standard damage, and maintain the grapple.)
While not (directly) stated, the character must state the kind of action they will attempt before the die is cast so that penalties may be applied accordingly.
Another question about this feat is how does it stack up with the already -4 penalty listed for not using two hands to grapple with, does it accumulate to -8? And why can't I use the tip of a Greatsword for the same type of effect?
And for grappling, yes, you cannot use more than two hands for an action; since TWF requires using two weapons (and a PC must use 2 hands for this, just as they do for a 2 handed weapon), they can't use it while grappled. Due to this, it's mutually exclusive.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
For example, if I have a Guisarme, or some other piercing weapon, and I succeed on an Impalement check, I can attempt to deal damage with a -4 penalty on the grapple check, dealing standard damage, and maintain the grapple.
Where does Hamatula Strike say that dealing the impalement damage will maintain the grapple?
For example, if I have a Guisarme, or some other piercing weapon, and I succeed on an Impalement check, I can attempt to deal damage with a -4 penalty on the grapple check, dealing standard damage, and maintain the grapple.Where does Hamatula Strike say that dealing the impalement damage will maintain the 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. If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds. Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple).
All emphasis mine.
The character at the start of his/her turn must make a grapple check against the target, or release the grapple. If successful, both the character and the target are still in grapple, and upon a successful grapple check, allows the character to perform a listed action.
As far as RAI is concerned, Hamatula Strike appears to add an action to that list, allowing the character to perform another grapple check as an attempt to impale the target, dealing damage with the weapon. Obviously, if the character fails to maintain the grapple (or drops the grapple), they cannot perform the Hamatula Strike feat.
For the RAW, though, there is plenty that needs errata/fixing/clearing up/etc. Such as why I cannot use something like a Longsword to impale the opponent, if the -4 from both the grappling attempts and the -4 listed in the feats stack up, if the grappled condition has adverse effects on maintaining the grapple, etc.
Otherwise, it's a very nice feat. If it was cleared up and beefed up some, it would be quite worthwhile as far as a feat is concerned.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The character at the start of his/her turn must make a grapple check against the target, or release the grapple. If successful, both the character and the target are still in grapple, and upon a successful grapple check, allows the character to perform a listed action.
As far as RAI is concerned, Hamatula Strike appears to add an action to that list, allowing the character to perform another grapple check as an attempt to impale the target, dealing damage with the weapon.
Maintaining the grapple at the start of your turn (the rules you quoted) costs you your standard action. That leaves you without a standard action remaining to perform the attack action that Hamatula Strike requires for its effect. Thus, you cannot both maintain the grapple and use the ability granted by Hamatula Strike, unless you have Greater Grapple (to maintain as a move action instead of a standard action).
Furthermore, one of the options listed in the Core rules for an additional effect when you successfully maintain a grapple is already to damage the opponent, so it can't be that Hamatula Strike is adding something to the list. The only advantage to Hamatula Strike is that you can damage them with a two-handed weapon, and that you can initiate a grapple in the same round that you hit someone with an attack (that's the good part, really).
One other thing:
If you do use the second part of Hamatula Strike to damage them, then you have fulfilled (again) the first part of the feat - damaging them with a piercing weapon. So you could make another freebie grapple check after succeeding on the grapple check to damage them. So with enough good rolls, you could skewer someone on your polearm and keep shaking them. It requires more good checks than a traditional grapple-and-damage routine, but in return it allows you to use a two-handed reach weapon and deal damage on the initiation round.
The character at the start of his/her turn must make a grapple check against the target, or release the grapple. If successful, both the character and the target are still in grapple, and upon a successful grapple check, allows the character to perform a listed action.
As far as RAI is concerned, Hamatula Strike appears to add an action to that list, allowing the character to perform another grapple check as an attempt to impale the target, dealing damage with the weapon.
Maintaining the grapple at the start of your turn (the rules you quoted) costs you your standard action. That leaves you without a standard action remaining to perform the attack action that Hamatula Strike requires for its effect. Thus, you cannot both maintain the grapple and use the ability granted by Hamatula Strike, unless you have Greater Grapple (to maintain as a move action instead of a standard action).
Furthermore, one of the options listed in the Core rules for an additional effect when you successfully maintain a grapple is already to damage the opponent, so it can't be that Hamatula Strike is adding something to the list. The only advantage to Hamatula Strike is that you can damage them with a two-handed weapon, and that you can initiate a grapple in the same round that you hit someone with an attack (that's the good part, really).
One other thing:
If you do use the second part of Hamatula Strike to damage them, then you have fulfilled (again) the first part of the feat - damaging them with a piercing weapon. So you could make another freebie grapple check after succeeding on the grapple check to damage them. So with enough good rolls, you could skewer someone on your polearm and keep shaking them. It requires more good checks than a traditional grapple-and-damage routine, but in return it allows you to use a two-handed reach weapon and deal damage on the initiation round.
It still needs plenty of rewriting, because it's still confusing as a feat in general.
The first part, I get; you get to make a Grapple Check upon a successful attack with a piercing weapon as an immediate action. The second part gets weird and impossible, requiring the character to use yet another standard action to deal the extra damage.
Like I said, as far as RAI is concerned, that's how the feat as a whole should operate. As far as RAW is concerned, it still needs some fine-tuning to get the desired effect. It's a very promising feat otherwise.
So summing up, it sounds like yes you can use this feat with two-weapon fighting.
If you grappel off the first hit you can finish out the rest of the attacks of a full attack.
If you are making grapple attempts off iterative attacks the grapple attempt will suffer the interative penalties.
You can't maintain the grapple (as of this point) with a full attack action, but you can release the graple as a free action and start an new Full attack actions with subsequant grapple checks on hits.
Does this sound about right?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Like I said, as far as RAI is concerned, that's how the feat as a whole should operate. As far as RAW is concerned, it still needs some fine-tuning to get the desired effect. It's a very promising feat otherwise.
You make it sound like you know the "RAI" and what the author's "desired effect" is. So either you've heard from the author (something that would probably be worth mentioning), or you're assuming that your interpretation surely must be what was intended.
@CDR Derf: Yes, what you describe sounds like it works.
You make it sound like you know the "RAI" and what the author's "desired effect" is. So either you've heard from the author (something that would probably be worth mentioning), or you're assuming that your interpretation surely must be what was intended.
For what it's worth, I agree with Darksol that it's pretty clear what the intent is (e.g., you're supposed to be able to "grapple" someone with a longspear, except with a -4 penalty). But whoever wrote the feat was a bit careless with the grapple rules.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That is certainly a possibility. However, the feat functions as written (unlike some mechanics), and therefore it shouldn't be assumed that the intent is different from what got published.
The first and best evidence for a mechanic's intent is the mechanic's text. Only when the text is non-functional, contradictory to existing rules, or brought into question by outside evidence should one begin to speculate different intent.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Like I said, as far as RAI is concerned, that's how the feat as a whole should operate. As far as RAW is concerned, it still needs some fine-tuning to get the desired effect. It's a very promising feat otherwise.You make it sound like you know the "RAI" and what the author's "desired effect" is. So either you've heard from the author (something that would probably be worth mentioning), or you're assuming that your interpretation surely must be what was intended.
Well, you're right in saying that I shouldn't 100% know the true intent of the feat, but RAI is as it is; an interpretation, which is taken into logical consideration when the RAW has confusing or nonsensible wording. The RAW as it is has unnecessary, unclarified, and contradictory information.
Whenever you damage an opponent with a piercing weapon, you can immediately make a grapple check; success means the opponent is impaled on your weapon and you both gain the grappled condition. While the opponent is impaled, as an attack action you may make a grapple check on your turn at a -4 penalty to damage the opponent with your weapon, even if your weapon cannot normally be used in a grapple.
All Emphasis Mine.
The first part makes sense for the most part; upon a successful attack that deals damage, the unit with the feat makes a grapple check as an immediate action (more-or-less, an AOO in terms of mechanics). If the Grapple Check is a success, they are both considered grappled and the target is impaled (somewhat of a sub-condition).
The second part cannot be possible. For the target to be impaled, the unit initiating the Hamatula Strike must have succeeded in the grapple check, and both are considered grappled. In order for the unit to maintain the target being grappled (which in turn means to be impaled, as per the feat), the unit must maintain the grapple, which requires a standard action.
In order for the character to attempt to deal damage with the weapon (at a -4 penalty, which we don't know if it stacks with the -4 for attempting grapple checks without using two hands), they must spend an Attack Action; as per the FAQ/Errata of Vital Strike, an Attack Action is a type of Standard Action. The second part requires the character to be able to perform two standard actions within the same round (AKA 6 seconds), which as per mechanics is not possible.
The best way to keep interpretation of the feat as close to mechanics as it is written (AKA, as close to RAW as possible), we only have to substitute the contradictory/unclarified information, which in this case is the second part requiring two standard actions (and the -4 stacking with a previous -4 from CRB RAW).
The simplest and most powerful way we can change it to, is to list the action mentioned as part of the actions the character can take upon a successful Maintained Grapple check, with the other wording staying the same as before. If we want to beef up the feat to make it more worthwhile (and not so penalizing, since a -8 to successfully deal weapon damage is quite a steep penalty), we can just cut out the extra -4 entirely, since RAI, we can't say for sure if it is a separate penalty, or if it is to simulate the same penalty you get from not using 2 hands to maintain a grapple. But if you want to stick as close to 100% RAW as possible, then it's a -8.
I mean, that's the easiest and most subtle way to change the feat to make it feasible as a whole, while at the same time keeping it as close to the wording as physically possible. If there is some other way to balance it out that is more efficient and concrete than mine, then by all means that is the better and more acceptable one. I'm no Dev or person who works for producing this game, nor will I ever be, but until a Dev comes in to officially Errata/FAQ that feat, as far as RAI is concerned, that's as close to feasibly using the entire feat as possible (that I can come up with).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Darksol - Ah, so you're saying that since the "damage check" granted by the feat requires that you be in a grapple ("While the opponent is impaled"), but you won't be on your turn unless you maintain it, that there's a brief lapse in the grappled condition (when your turn starts and you choose to do something other than a normal maintain)? Basically, if you make the "damage check", you cause that very check to be illegal?
I see that now, good point. So either it doesn't function, or it's suppoed to work only with Greater Grapple. The latter seems unlikely given the feat requires Improved but not Greater Grapple, which leaves us with a nonfunctional feat, and yes, that should trigger us wanting to look for a disparity between print and intent.
With all that in mind, I'd have to say that how it's supposed to work is just like the standard "maintain + damage" option, except you get to involve a polearm instead of being restricted to one-handers.
Thanks for working through that with me. :)
@Darksol - Ah, so you're saying that since the "damage check" granted by the feat requires that you be in a grapple ("While the opponent is impaled"), but you won't be on your turn unless you maintain it, that there's a brief lapse in the grappled condition (when your turn starts and you choose to do something other than a normal maintain)? Basically, if you make the "damage check", you cause that very check to be illegal?
I see that now, good point. So either it doesn't function, or it's suppoed to work only with Greater Grapple. The latter seems unlikely given the feat requires Improved but not Greater Grapple, which leaves us with a nonfunctional feat, and yes, that should trigger us wanting to look for a disparity between print and intent.
With all that in mind, I'd have to say that how it's supposed to work is just like the standard "maintain + damage" option, except you get to involve a polearm instead of being restricted to one-handers.
Thanks for working through that with me. :)
Sure thing; the Core says if you wish to maintain the grapple (which is required if you want to deal damage with your piercing weapon), you must sacrifice a standard action to do so. The feat says as an Attack Action, which Vital Strike states an Attack Action is a type of Standard Action. So it'd need to be listed as "automatically dealing weapon damage upon a successful grapple check" (according to the listed "intent" abilities from TGMaxMaxer).
If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold.
I double-checked the Core and it says you only receive a -4 on the initial grapple attempt if not using 2 hands (as a humanoid creature), so it wouldn't stack with the -4 upon already being grappled, so that resolves that issue.
Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll.
@ TGMaxMaxer
Yes, it's poorly worded. At least seeing the intent of the creature from which it came from gives us a better insight as to the intent, and I think I was right in its intent (allowing the successful grapple check to deal piercing damage, the damage scaling based on the weapon wielded).
It's definitely a very solid feat once the changes go to it; shall we FAQ it?
Indeed. FAQ it.
My reference to "with that weapon only" was to prevent someone from using a dagger, valid as a piercing weapon, to activate the feat and try to argue that while TWF they could deal damage with a pick, another piercing weapon. instead for the higher damage dice.
Because you know they'll try to.
It wouldn't work that way anyway. It deals weapon damage upon a successful grapple. The weapon damage would be based upon which attack/weapon succeeded in the initial grapple (which is at a -4, since the PC isn't using 2 hands); the PC attempting this using TWF incurs penalties as normal, and upon a successful grapple (and subsequent grapple checks) would only be able to use one hand (obviously the one not impaling the target) to attack with anyway.
The real question to ask here, is if attacking with just the one hand (while the other is impaling) would still incur TWF penalties?
Ahh... since it is a standard action to maintain and do damage, you would not get to attack with an off hand weapon.
So now we posit this, does Double Slice (i think is the feat that lets you attack with 2 wpns as a standard attack) now allow this?
And, does a Monk with
** spoiler omitted **
now get to take advantage of this feat?
Yes he would. And a lot of the problems of if you would take an additional penalty to your grapple for not having 2 hands free incure the additionl penalty would be a non issue for an all unarmed strike attack monk.
With all that in mind, I'd have to say that how it's supposed to work is just like the standard "maintain + damage" option, except you get to involve a polearm instead of being restricted to one-handers.
I thought this part was clear in the wording, even if it was a little less than completely described. It looks like the phrasing was used to exclude moving or pinning as options of the grapple check, and to make the check take a -4 penalty. The -4 penalty of not having two free hands only applies to the initial grapple attempt (the hold attack from 3.5). THis penalty is bypassed by the feat. I presume that, as a regular grapple, you are free to end it (unimpale) at any time. Also important, is sine the feat specifies an attack action, you couldn't combine it with Greater Grapple's move action. But since the feat precludes pinning or moving as options, I'm not sure what options would be available to the grappler. Using that IUS to punch them maybe? Or I guess you could establish a 2nd grapple against them that doesn't involve impalement.
|
Hamatula Strike does indeed have poor wording.
I like musing on the thought you could use it via RAW for a Mortal Kombat Scorpion style, "get over here move".
If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails).
You get the lunge feat, enlarge, use a reach piercing weapon, and you tag someone 25' away. Due to the rules of grapple they get pulled adjacent.
|
Hamatula Strike does indeed have poor wording.
I like musing on the thought you could use it via RAW for a Mortal Kombat Scorpion style, "get over here move".
If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails).You get the lunge feat, enlarge, use a reach piercing weapon, and you tag someone 25' away. Due to the rules of grapple they get pulled adjacent.
If that would work, why not just use a Rope Dart? It's a piercing monk weapon with 20ft range. It's also what Scorpion actually uses.