|
IF YOU ARE GRAPPLED
"...Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that doesn't require two hands to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach..."
So, for the full attack can i use multiple natural attacks or does "a light or one handed weapon..." mean a single weapon?
So...
Critter with a bite and two claws. You would assume since you cant do anything that requires two arms you couldn't use 2 claws. The question is could critter in question while grappled both bite and use one claw for its full attack?
As a Jujitsu practitioner, I know of very few useful grapple holds that don't control at least one arm. The few that focus, say, more on leg submissions are extremely ill-advised against an opponent holding, say, a knife or gun (by "ill-advised" I mean, you grapple his legs but then you die). There are a few good chokeholds that leave the victim's hands free, but again, never do them if he has a weapon and I strongly advise against doing them if he also knows Jujitsu or you're likely to find your arm paralyzed (if you're lucky) or broken before you can hope to choke him out.
Given that, I tend to be more rules-lawyerish about this particular grapple question. Note that the OP quoted a bit of the Grapple text. It says "make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon". The keyword is "a". That's one. Just one.
I don't know if that's RAI, but we lawyer types can hang an entire argument on one word, and "a" is always singular, never plural.
Using that, to answer the OP's question "while grappled both bite and use one claw for its full attack?" - No, you cannot use just one claw for a complete Bite/Claw/Claw full-attack, but you could use just one claw for a Bite/Claw full-attack.
|
|
@Blake.
Sorry but the way you wrote that last bit confuses me for whatever reason.
DM BLAKE wrote
"No, you cannot use just one claw for a complete Bite/Claw/Claw full-attack, but you could use just one claw for a Bite/Claw full-attack."
it looks like your saying to use a claw for a bite attack, which for the proposes of a full attack with natural weapons you cant do.
did you by any chance mean...
As the grappled critter that has one bite and two claws one can for their full attack, use one bight and one claw?
|
What about the 'rake' special attack that can (mostly) only be used if already grappling? Or does that not apply because the subject under discussion is about break/reverse on the grapple?
If sticking to the implication that a grappled creature loses the use of at least one of its "hands" (as I would also tend to do for the reason DM_Blake mentioned), rake attacks still apply, because they use the hind claws that are not comparable to hands.
RAI, DM_Blake is correct; the rules try to simulate an inability to use your limbs, since they are occupied by an enemy using their own limbs to restrain you. As GM, I'd implement a clause stating that limbs which are similar to or involve hands are considered hands for the purposes of grappling effects. With that said, you'd get only one Claw, and your Bite.
RAW, the rules for natural weapons are different from manufactured weapons, and you could get away with using all natural weapons (including Unarmed Strike); heck, even if one of your claws holds a one-handed weapon, you could still full attack with all weapons without issue.
(For the record, I sided with DM_Blake for this, but explained both sides of the spectrum.)
|
I have found the full attack the defender can make in a grapple rather confusing when natural weapons are involved. I have three interpretations of the rules that all seem correct.
1. The defender can attack with a single natural weapon (plus rake) as a full attack action in a grapple.
2. The defender can attack with all but a single natural weapon (usually a claw attack as they are the closest to a hand) (plus rake) as a full attack action in a grapple. The reasoning is one 'hand' is bound up in a grapple preventing attacks with both hands.
3. The defender can attack with all natural weapons (plus rake) as a full attack action in a grapple. The reasoning is no attack is considered two-handed, in fact, no attack uses a hand at all! This reasoning would also allow a two-weapon fighter to full attack using both weapons in a grapple.
Also, the question of whether a grab attack which succeeds allows the rest of the full attack action still seems murky.
|
|
Also, the question of whether a grab attack which succeeds allows the rest of the full attack action still seems murky.
You think that's bad? How about this... a creature with the Grab ability attacks, hits and successfully grapples another creature. That other creature on its turn attacks back with a natural attack that has the Grab ability and allows it to initiate a grapple... worse, it can do so and specifically not get the grappled condition... Grabception?
|
|
You think that's bad? How about this... a creature with the Grab ability attacks, hits and successfully grapples another creature. That other creature on its turn attacks back with a natural attack that has the Grab ability and allows it to initiate a grapple... worse, it can do so and specifically not get the grappled condition... Grabception?
Also, the question of whether a grab attack which succeeds allows the rest of the full attack action still seems murky.
That's great!
But I would expect the free grapple check of the grab manoeuvre allows them to control the grapple if they succeed, and if they take the -20 penalty they effectively escape the grapple as well, unless it has a specific creature ability to do so without penalty - which makes those creatures much more dangerous.
I always assumed the fact you can't use a 2Her while grappled is because you lack the swing/maneuverability space of that weapon, not because '1 limb' is being grappled.
Except that the grappler still remains in his own square 5' away. Still lots of space.
Admittedly it's all RAI at this point.
However, there are way too many cases where allowing a full attack with all hands/claws/limbs actually leaves the grapplee stronger than the grappler (who is spending standard actions to maintain the grapple so cannot do as much damage per round as the grapplee can). Since the RAW gives the advantage to the grapplee without impeding their attacks, the assumption that at least one of their attacks is impeded by RAI balances this somewhat.
You can full attack, as long as you're using a light or one-handed weapon. All natural weapons are light weapons, so you're fine.
A light or one-handed weapon. A. Singular.
You can't twf while grappled, nor can you use all your natural attacks.