|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
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.
A grappled creature cannot use Stealth to hide from the creature grappling it, even if a special ability, such as hide in plain sight, would normally allow it to do so. If a grappled creature becomes invisible, through a spell or other ability, it gains a +2 circumstance bonus on its CMD to avoid being grappled, but receives no other benefit.
A simple question with a not so simple answer:
The bolded part mean that the grappled creature can't use a weapon that require 2 hands or do any other action that require to use two hands at the same time?
Or that he can use only one hand at all and so he is limited to using a single weapon and can't use two weapon combat?
TWF requires two hands to perform, so no, they can't TWF.
Ironically enough, they could overturn the grapple, and with Greater Grapple feat, start thwacking away with the Vital Strike feat, or pop a potion.
|
|
The strange thing is that you don't necessarily have a hand pinned somewhere and you can take a full attack.
At that point, what is your AC if you have shield and sword and you use the sword? You can use the shield to get an AC bonus?
You can make a full attack without using two weapon combat.
So can use your right hand with the first iterative attack and your left hand with the second? Or that too count as using two hands?
Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll.
You suffer a penalty to your grapple check if you can't use two hands, you can't use 2 hands while grappled, so you suffer from that penalty when you make the check to free yourself?
When you make the check to maintain the grapple?If "In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform." mean that you have only 1 free hand there are tons of things that need to be addressed.
The strange thing is that you don't necessarily have a hand pinned somewhere and you can take a full attack.
At that point, what is your AC if you have shield and sword and you use the sword? You can use the shield to get an AC bonus?
You can make a full attack without using two weapon combat.
So can use your right hand with the first iterative attack and your left hand with the second? Or that too count as using two hands?Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll.You suffer a penalty to your grapple check if you can't use two hands, you can't use 2 hands while grappled, so you suffer from that penalty when you make the check to free yourself?
When you make the check to maintain the grapple?If "In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform." mean that you have only 1 free hand there are tons of things that need to be addressed.
Excellent questions that the rules don't explain. For determining which arm is affected, I'd roll a dice to say which is (not) affected for fairness and simplicity. In terms of if you still retain shield AC, the RAW doesn't say you lose it, though I'd say you would if it's the arm you can't use.
As for the second point, I'd rule that you can only iterative with a single hand, not both hands separately, since those are actions that involve the use of both arms.
The -4 penalty only applies when initiating a grapple, maintaining or breaking free from a grapple aren't the same actions, so no -4 is applied, nor is the -2 to attack rolls applied to such checks. Plus, it's not like you can't grapple with other body parts as well, such as a tail or spikes impaling your target.
The -4 penalty only applies when initiating a grapple, maintaining or breaking free from a grapple aren't the same actions, so no -4 is applied, nor is the -2 to attack rolls applied to such checks. Plus, it's not like you can't grapple with other body parts as well, such as a tail or spikes impaling your target.
The -4 penalty applies to making any grapple check (it doesn't say only when first starting a series of grapple checks over one or more rounds).
Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll....... 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.
Emphasis mine, you are still making a grapple check on subsequent rounds.
A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple
Again emphasis mine. Counter grappling is still a grapple check. Grapple checks still take a -4 penalty without two free hands.
Per RAW it appears having the grappled condition gives a -4 to both maintain the grapple or reverse the grapple. RAI... no idea, it feels counter intuitive RAI.
RAW, drop your sword and shield if you don't want the penalty to escape.
|
|
Well, it seems that RAI you can not TWF. But I do not know,The action in the TWF full attack are single attacks one afther the other, you do not need two hands to make the single attack.
A grappled creature with two bashing attacks was what prompted this question.
Let's say something grapple a lion. The lion get only 1 claw attack?
Creatures with natural attacks can full round attack if they are grappled. So following that logic someone with TWF should be able to full attack by RAI.
I will try to find a link to developer statement.
My search-fu is failing, and the website is slow. I might have to try this again tomorrow.
I like the RAI due to Synthesist Summoners, Alchemists, or Beast Shape spells that give characters more than 2 arms. 1 arm is used in a grapple.
Grapple allows you to attack with only light, unarmed, and natural attacks. The lion can still bite you, claw you with one hand, and rake with its feet.
You don't necessarily need two hands to TWF. You could have a one-handed weapon and a boot blade or Dwarven boulder helmet.
Sure there are side cases of things like boot blades and boulder helmets, but I think Diego was really asking about two weapons - one in each hand.
And @Maezer, aside from things like the boot blades, TWF most certainly does require two hands. You have a primary hand weapon and an off hand weapon.
Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6.
For the case of the simple humanoid creature this is plainly two hands.
I like the RAI due to Synthesist Summoners, Alchemists, or Beast Shape spells that give characters more than 2 arms. 1 arm is used in a grapple.
Grapple allows you to attack with only light, unarmed, and natural attacks. The lion can still bite you, claw you with one hand, and rake with its feet.
Not quite accurate. Any one handed weapon is actually fine, not just light one handed weapons.
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.
|
|
No other comments. so, I am the only one with a doubt about this?
I think you can TWF just fine. If all you want is a different opinion. All two weapon fighting does is grant you an extra attack. Nothing about that extra attack requires 2 hands.
I tend to feel is RAI is that they though it would be difficult it wield very large object while grappled thus they prohibited that.
I am pretty sure I could dig up a dev post saying you can flurry in grapple if I really try (but I don't think its worth the effort) and it would just be argued that flurry is a corner case because it can always been done with 1 hand despite being like two weapon fighting.
That is exactly my opinion, but the rules are vague on that, so I am hoping for a detailed answer (possibly with citations) from people that know the grappling rules better than me.
|
|
I like the RAI due to Synthesist Summoners, Alchemists, or Beast Shape spells that give characters more than 2 arms. 1 arm is used in a grapple.
Grapple allows you to attack with only light, unarmed, and natural attacks. The lion can still bite you, claw you with one hand, and rake with its feet.
If the lion is the grappled creature, not the grappler, it is not using an appendage to grapple the opponent, so in theory all of its appendages are free to attack.
|
CAN I TWF WHILE GRAPPLING?
No - you cannot use TWF with the grappled condition as it specifically needs both hands free.
Rules for Two-Weapon Fighting: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
Getting that second attack requires the second hand be free to act. As grappled condition prohibits actions that require two hands to perform, you could attack with one weapon but not the other.
DO I LOSE MY SHIELD'S AC IF I AM A SWORD-AND-BOARD FIGHTER?
No. There is no specific penalty to shield use in a grapple.
(You could not shield bash with your board after using your sword to attack as that would be TWF and would not be possible with the grappled condition.)
CAN I TWF WHILE GRAPPLING?
No - you cannot use TWF with the grappled condition as it specifically needs both hands free.
Rules for Two-Weapon Fighting: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
Getting that second attack requires the second hand be free to act. As grappled condition prohibits actions that require two hands to perform, you could attack with one weapon but not the other.
DO I LOSE MY SHIELD'S AC IF I AM A SWORD-AND-BOARD FIGHTER?
No. There is no specific penalty to shield use in a grapple.
(You could not shield bash with your board after using your sword to attack as that would be TWF and would not be possible with the grappled condition.)
They were asking about the victim.
The grappler should use two hands for a grapple, but it is not required. However if you only use one hand you take a penalty to the grapple check when trying to initiate a grapple.
(You could not shield bash with your board after using your sword to attack as that would be TWF and would not be possible with the grappled condition.)
This isn't true, TWF specifically grants an additional attack. As part of a full attack you can most certainly switch weapons during the attack sequence.
Which now makes me question why TWFing would be limited if that is the case. TWFing requires a weapon in each 'hand', yes... But those attacks aren't occuring at the same time and neither attack is reliant on the other. One weapon goes through the attack sequence (let's say the primary) then after that completes, the next weapon goes through the sequence.
You don't need two hands to make an attack with either weapon in a TWF sequence (barring something like a greatsword & armor spike set up). And you couldn't use two hands to deal extra damage with a 1H weapon. Those both require 2 hands at the same time to accomplish.
I'm not sold on TWF being restricted now that I'm thinking about it.
|
|
CAN I TWF WHILE GRAPPLING?
No - you cannot use TWF with the grappled condition as it specifically needs both hands free.
Rules for Two-Weapon Fighting: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
Getting that second attack requires the second hand be free to act. As grappled condition prohibits actions that require two hands to perform, you could attack with one weapon but not the other.
DO I LOSE MY SHIELD'S AC IF I AM A SWORD-AND-BOARD FIGHTER?
No. There is no specific penalty to shield use in a grapple.
(You could not shield bash with your board after using your sword to attack as that would be TWF and would not be possible with the grappled condition.)
Same thing for a grappled lion? I lose the use of one of its claw attack?
Or it is only an humanoid thong?To ask a question about the situation that prompted this thread: a grappled flesh golem get 1 bash attack or two?
|
|
Long story short when it comes to grappling: Keep it simple.
Unless something clearly can not be done because of the grappled condition (e.g. using a two-handed weapon), let it go.
If Bruno were GMing:
The flesh golem would get both slams. There is nothing to indicate that A) a slam is a two-handed attack or B) each limb makes its own slam attack. (In another thread, it was pointed out that "slams" were not defined in PF--except for Eidolons--but they were in 3.5.)
The lion gets both claws. It is assumed there is a right claw/left claw dynamic, but it is not explicitly stated. If your GM wants to deal with the technical minutiae, then it is reasonable to say lion would lose one claw attack...but expect major table variance and GM fiat (because you did decide to grapple a lion after all).
Ok, thanks. I can live whit that (the golem and the lion getting all the attacks).
The RAW does only say hands. RAI, I'd say objects and appendages that are similar to or occupy the hand (determined at the time of making the grapple) count as being unusable, such as one of the lion's claw attacks, but RAW, a lion can still bite and claw and tail whip.
@ bbangerter: How does the -4 apply to all Grapple checks? Making a Grapple Check is not the same as attempting a Grapple, the language used within the sentence being the latter.
Now, if the sentence structure included the word "check" after the word "Grapple," I'd concede and accept the clarification; but it doesn't. Because you maintain a grapple after success of the initial grapple check, you are no longer "attempting a Grapple," since A: You're already in a grapple, and B: Subsequent checks of an initially successful Grapple checks are made to maintain the grapple, not attempt to grapple.
Edit: Language change.
And @Maezer, aside from things like the boot blades, TWF most certainly does require two hands. You have a primary hand weapon and an off hand weapon.Does wielding a weapon in the main hand require 2 hands?
or does wielding a weapon in the off hand require 2 hands?
In which case how does the standard human wield both weapons at the same time?Does attacking with the main hand weapon require 2 hands?
or does attacking with the off hand weapon require 2 hands?
In which case how does the standard humanoid every conduct a two weapon attack?Or lets look at this another way. If you grapple a standard bestiary Marilith (6 armed demon) how many longsword attacks does it get on a full attack while grappled. Do longswords #2-6 all require two (or more) hands?
-----
Really I only posted because Diego seemed to be under the impression there was no opposition. I tend to think this is one of those issues with entrenched camps that no one will budge short of an official dev post. And even then they only move bitterly with a deep seeded grudge ready to snipe at the official position whenever they see an opening.
The factor of how many hands a weapon takes while grappled is irrelevant and pointless to discuss since the answer is cut and dry. If you only end up using a single hand for your TWF, then the issue is averted, and yes, you could technically TWF.
It doesn't change the factor that the Marilith can only attack with a single Longsword since attacking with multiple hands is impossible while grappled (Freedom of Movement is his best friend!). If he could make claw attacks with each hand occupied by Longswords, the RAW says he would be able to drop those Longswords and make 5 Claw Attacks along with a single Longsword Attack. RAI (and my personal interpretation), I'd rule he can only use one hand or similar appendage (as well any items in that hand only) to attack with, but we don't discuss RAI here.
Ok, thanks. I can live whit that (the golem and the lion getting all the attacks).The RAW does only say hands. RAI, I'd say objects and appendages that are similar to or occupy the hand (determined at the time of making the grapple) count as being unusable, such as one of the lion's claw attacks, but RAW, a lion can still bite and claw and tail whip.
@ bbangerter: How does the -4 apply to all Grapple checks? Making a Grapple Check is not the same as attempting a Grapple, the language used within the sentence being the latter.
Now, if the sentence structure included the word "check" after the word "Grapple," I'd concede and accept the clarification; but it doesn't. Because you maintain a grapple after success of the initial grapple check, you are no longer "attempting a Grapple," since A: You're already in a grapple, and B: Subsequent checks of an initially successful Grapple checks are made to maintain the grapple, not attempt to grapple.
Edit: Language change.
Your arguing semantics at this point though.
What constitutes a grapple? Your d20 + CMB vs their CMD.
What constitutes a grapple check? Your d20 + CMB vs their CMD.
This is similar to the question - "Are the channel energy of the cleric and channel ability of the life oracle the same thing? (in terms of qualifying for feats that require the channel energy class feature)." The answer is yes they are. The word check doesn't fundamentally change what your are rolling for.
In both cases there may be mitigating circumstances that altar CMB/CMD values, one of which is that being grappled gives both a -4 to dex, thus lowering the CMD of both involved by 2.
I question whether that is really the RAI of it though. If I have 2 free hands and start grappling someone, it shouldn't be harder to maintain the grapple on the following rounds because I now "can't do anything requiring two hands" so have the one handed grapple penalties.
Does wielding a weapon in the main hand require 2 hands?
or does wielding a weapon in the off hand require 2 hands?
In which case how does the standard human wield both weapons at the same time?Does attacking with the main hand weapon require 2 hands?
or does attacking with the off hand weapon require 2 hands?
In which case how does the standard humanoid every conduct a two weapon attack?
You are asking the wrong questions here.
The question you should be asking is:
How many hands does it take to wield two one-handed weapons simultaneously? Or how many hands does it take to perform TWF?
It doesn't matter that for part of the round you are attacking with one one-handed weapon and for part of the round you are attacking with a different one-handed weapon, you still require two hands to be able to pull off a TWF full attack.
For example, would you let a one armed man TWF by making his normal single weapon iterative attacks, drop his weapon as a free action, draw a new weapon using quick draw, then declare an off hand attack with the new weapon using that same arm/hand?
For the Marilith example remember that the rules are written with humanoids in mind, so anything not humanoid for cases like this fall to GM fiat. Personally I'd block one of the mariliths sword attacks if it was grappled under the fluff of the player has a hold of one of her arms preventing her from using that arm effectively - leaving the rest of the attacks free to lash about at whoever is in range.
Ok, thanks. I can live whit that (the golem and the lion getting all the attacks).The RAW does only say hands. RAI, I'd say objects and appendages that are similar to or occupy the hand (determined at the time of making the grapple) count as being unusable, such as one of the lion's claw attacks, but RAW, a lion can still bite and claw and tail whip.
@ bbangerter: How does the -4 apply to all Grapple checks? Making a Grapple Check is not the same as attempting a Grapple, the language used within the sentence being the latter.
Now, if the sentence structure included the word "check" after the word "Grapple," I'd concede and accept the clarification; but it doesn't. Because you maintain a grapple after success of the initial grapple check, you are no longer "attempting a Grapple," since A: You're already in a grapple, and B: Subsequent checks of an initially successful Grapple checks are made to maintain the grapple, not attempt to grapple.
Edit: Language change.
Your arguing semantics at this point though.
What constitutes a grapple? Your d20 + CMB vs their CMD.
What constitutes a grapple check? Your d20 + CMB vs their CMD.This is similar to the question - "Are the channel energy of the cleric and channel ability of the life oracle the same thing? (in terms of qualifying for feats that require the channel energy class feature)." The answer is yes they are. The word check doesn't fundamentally change what your are rolling for.
In both cases there may be mitigating circumstances that altar CMB/CMD values, one of which is that being grappled gives both a -4 to dex, thus lowering the CMD of both involved by 2.
I question whether that is really the RAI of it though. If I have 2 free hands and start grappling someone, it shouldn't be harder to maintain the grapple on the following rounds because I now "can't do anything requiring two hands" so have the one handed grapple penalties.
Initiating a grapple and maintaining a grapple between you and another creature are still two different things that incorporate separate modifiers. If we go by that logic, all attacks are the same, and the modifiers between a normal attack and a Power Attack are irrelevant because they both involve a D20 plus base attack and strength. The same is said for combat maneuvers.
Even so, the Core specifically denotes the difference of initiating and maintaining a grapple, which is no different from a character denoting the use of Power Attack or not.
Initiating a grapple and maintaining a grapple between you and another creature are still two different things that incorporate separate modifiers. If we go by that logic, all attacks are the same, and the modifiers between a normal attack and a Power Attack are irrelevant because they both involve a D20 plus base attack and strength. The same is said for combat maneuvers.
If I attack a creature I make a d20 roll and add appropriate modifiers and compare it against the enemies AC. Power attacking doesn't change the mechanics of how making an attack works. Power attack adds a modifier (a negative one to hit) and modifies damage done if you hit, but it doesn't change the fundamentals of how an attack is made.
Even so, the Core specifically denotes the difference of initiating and maintaining a grapple, which is no different from a character denoting the use of Power Attack or not.
Where does it denote these are different? It notes that the person who has control of the grapple gets a +5 to maintain the grapple, but I'm not seeing where it distinguishes these are separate types of actions. And that the person being grappled gets a -2 to attack/combat maneuver rolls (except to escape the grapple).
Is there a difference between making an acrobatics roll and an acrobatics check? Or a perception roll vs a perception check? The word check is used in some places talking about grapple because it flows better grammatically. But it is still a grapple roll or grapple check (CMB + mods vs CMD + mods).
|
|
Ok, thanks. I can live whit that (the golem and the lion getting all the attacks).The RAW does only say hands. RAI, I'd say objects and appendages that are similar to or occupy the hand (determined at the time of making the grapple) count as being unusable, such as one of the lion's claw attacks, but RAW, a lion can still bite and claw and tail whip.
The rules don't say anywhere that one of your hands is pinned or unusable, they only say that you cant make an action that require two hands.
It is completely different.Attacking with a two handed weapon surely is out as you are using two hands at the same time, using two weapons could be read as "using two hands", but none of the above meant that one of your hands/arms are pinned or unusable, and that is the crux of the problem.
So your contention now is, not only that you cannot attack with both weapon, but you cannot even wield them? So you force character to drop whatever is in their off hand I assume. So your grappled target cannot wield both a shield in his left hand and a longsword in his right I assume. I think that's flawed.
Your misunderstanding what I'm saying. By wield I mean the common definition of wielding. Wield means to hold and USE.
If 1) making an attack with the longsword in my right hand is a valid option when grappled, 2) Or making a shield bash with shield in my left hand is a valid action while grappled, then 3) Then I don't see the problem with two weapon fighting and doing both as you are not restricting either limb from being used to make attacks.
This is really the crux of the original question. Grapple plainly states you cannot do any action that requires two hands. That's not guesswork, or implied wording, that is straight up wording from the rules.
...grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform.
What is vague is what that actually really means.
Holding a sword in one hand and holding a shield in the other hand plainly means you are using two hands. But the grapple rules don't define what effect that has. Blocking uses one hand. Attacking uses one hand. But blocking and attacking are separate actions (actually blocking isn't even an action, it just happens).
With a BAB of 6 you get two attacks. If you are holding a dagger in each hand you could attack once with each of them, but normal iterative attacks don't require you to attack using both hands. You could use a single hand to make both your attacks - thereby avoiding the grapple rules that something requiring two hands cannot be done.
If you are getting an extra attack from TWF you must be using both hands. You cannot choose to make all your attack (2 for BAB 6 and 1 for TWF) with just a single hand. The extra attack is required to come from the weapon designated as your off hand weapon - whichever weapon that might be.
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
Emphasis mine.
If the developers were to answer against this viewpoint it wouldn't actually make any difference to me. I'd shrug and go "okay". I don't actually care about this issue working one way or the other.
I am pretty sure I could dig up a dev post saying you can flurry in grapple if I really try (but I don't think its worth the effort) and it would just be argued that flurry is a corner case because it can always been done with 1 hand despite being like two weapon fighting.
Just a side note on this, the devs have actually ruled that flurry can be done with a single limb for all attacks (this was after a previous ruling that it couldn't). As it stands now flurry has some similarities to TWF, but is not TWF as it can be done with a single hand (or foot, or forehead).
Monk Flurry of Blows: When I use flurry of blows, can I make all of the attacks with just one weapon, or do I have to use two, as implied by the ability functioning similarly to Two-Weapon Fighting?You can make all of your attacks with a single monk weapon. Alternatively, you can replace any number of these attacks with an unarmed strike. This FAQ specifically changes a previous ruling made in the blog concerning this issue.