|
"Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to grapple a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Grapple. Once you have grappled a creature, maintaining the grapple is a move action. This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round (to move, harm, or pin your opponent), but you are not required to make two checks. You only need to succeed at one of these checks to maintain the grapple."
I have a player who is interpreting this to mean he can make grapple checks against two opponents a turn. further, he says if he has them pinned, he can drop one as a free action, tie the other with a move action, and re-grapple the dropped with a standard action.
No, it says quite clearly that it's for creatures that you already have grappled. So you can maintain the grapple as a move action and pin, then maintain the grapple as your other move action and do damage. So grappling a creature for the first time is still a standard action.
|
Here is the logic behind this move:
Round 1 Move and start a grapple with the first target as a standard action.
Round 2 Use a move action to maintain the grapple, again one handed, and having maintained the grapple choose the move option to move half your speed up to the next target. Use a standard to initiate a grapple against the second target.
Round 3 Use a move action to maintain grapple on first target, use it to pin. Use a standard action to maintain grapple on second target, use it to move to pin.
Round 4 Use a free action to drop grapple on the second target, use a move action to maintain the grapple on the first target taking a - 10 penalty using it to tie up the target. Use your standard action to initiate a grapple on the second target.
At no point do you ever grapple two targets in the same turn. You can only ever initiate a grapple with a standard action.
Dropping someone release the grapple compeltely. Unless they were prone during the grapple grappling does not make them prone. It is not like they wait there to when they are let go.
Utlimately your player can nto do what he is saying.
I'm not sure if grappling two opponents is covered in PFS.
But in the rules, it does say that any modifiers that apply to attacks also apply to CMB checks, so grappling two opponents would result in the standard penalties for Two-Weapon-Fighting.
Further, I don't think a grapple could be considered a light weapon, so even with the Two-Weapon-Fighting feat, there would be a -4 penalty to both grapples.
Oh, and don't forget that innitiating the second grapple suffers from a -2 penalty to attacks from having the grappled condition.
Also, of course a grappled creature isn't knocked prone, even when pinned. When grappling someone, a character just holds that opponent. When pinning, the character establishes a better hold (like the kind of hold the police use when arresting people). And of course, it's possible to hold two people that way, it's just a bit more difficult than holding a single person.
he had rope wrapped around him.
I'm more concerned about grappling two different opponents with greater grapple. nowhere in the rule does it use plural.
The closest you're going to get is the Universal Monster Rules on Grab IMO. If they're trying to grapple two opponents, they're just using a single hand to control them.
The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself.
Even against wizards, a -20 to CMB should be very difficult to do at similar levels.
|
|
I disagree with the -20 being difficult to make against a wizard; a grappling specialist at level 10 should be in the low 30s, against the typical wizard having a CMD in the 20-21 range. Sure it's no longer "1 makes it"; but if you need your dex (or want to double grapple) that is how you do it (or you can be a Tetori and do it anyway).
But no, Greater Grapple assumes you started the round grappled in the first place. You can't even grapple and pin in the 1st round. What greater grapple lets you do is grapple, then pin (or tie up if that is your plan, though I've found tie up is a bad idea; burst on silk ropes is only DC 23... you're better off holding them effectively helpless).
Grapple is amazing vs 1 opponent, and sucks horribly vs groups; that is how it works.
Also, a "grapple action" does not include "start a grapple". A grapple action is defined; doing damage with a natural attack, pinning, roping up (at -10 unless they are already pinned), etc. They are things you do within the grapple. So even if I rope off opponent #1 I cannot do anything to opponent #2. Also if I miss with a grapple attempt vs an opponent I do not get to try to do a second one as a move action.
What greater grapple lets you do is grapple, then pin (or tie up if that is your plan, though I've found tie up is a bad idea; burst on silk ropes is only DC 23... you're better off holding them effectively helpless).
This is why you use CHAIN instead of rope! :)
|
|
Humanoids grapplers can use one hand to grab as per:
Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll.
So if you grapple with one hand its at -4. This is the penalty you take for grappling one handed but leaves you a free hand.
At no point do you start two grapples in a turn. As for maintaining a grapple as a move action, you can easily do that on the same turn that you initiate a grapple. You don't have to but you can otherwise Greater Grapple's second clause is pointless, as is the Rapid Grappler feat. In fact that feat makes it clear you can maintain grapple multiple times in a turn.
So as i planned out above you grapple one target first round, maintain as a move then grapple the second target but each grapple takes a -4 (similar to the 2 wpn fighting penalty suggested) on every subsequent grapple and maintain.
|
|
Out of curiosity can you tie up with chain and not rope? The tie up action specifies rope and I wasn't sure if you could substitute chain or manacles or something until after you tied up with rope. Also UE introduced a rope with a 24 break DC, though they don't list the ability to burst the rope under tied up.
|
|
so we have -4 for a second grapple or -20. neither of those seems correct.
if you try to grab someone with a single hand, it's at -4. I get that. you're going to be at a disadvantage. but if you've already got a dude in a headlock with your left arm, it's going to be a lot harder to grab a dude with your right than if you didn't. is it -20 more difficult? that seems unlikely. but there's no way it can just be a -4. yes, I'm a stickler for physics and I know they don't apply in PFS, but that's just dumb.
a grappler able to incapacitate two bad guys in two rounds without significant penalties is busted. if it's truly just a -4, a tetori would need to roll a 1 to fail on a good number of occasions. there is too much on the line for it to be that easy.
|
|
The -20 applies to a completely different situation. It is for monsters with the grab ability allowing them to grapple with a single limb without gaining the grappled condition themselves.
and a -4 penalty applies to a one handed grab while otherwise unencumbered. your point? I'm saying the -4 using one arm is completely different than using one arm while already holding someone with the other.
|
|
My point being that you cannot apply the -20 to the situation. As for the other we go by what is in the rules. If you don't have a free hand (say its holding a weapon, a torch, a dragon or a rope) you take a -4.
Make sense in some situations yes, in others not as much until they specify another rule, one hand free is one hand free.
|
|
My point being that you cannot apply the -20 to the situation. As for the other we go by what is in the rules. If you don't have a free hand (say its holding a weapon, a torch, a dragon or a rope) you take a -4.
Make sense in some situations yes, in others not as much until they specify another rule, one hand free is one hand free.
you're reading the rules as "if it doesn't say I can't" whereas I read the rules as "unless it says you can."
as far as I'm concerned, my take is more fair to everyone. this is the exact same problem I had last time I faced a tetori. the rules are not clearly defined, so he just picked the most convenient interpretation that suited him. that's not how this is played. RAW vs RAI.
all of my experience with the class seems to be about exploiting loopholes. "the rules don't say I can't" is barely better than flat out cheating. it's like the guy who wanted to use heirloom weapon for his grapples.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I have a player who is interpreting this to mean he can make grapple checks against two opponents a turn. further, he says if he has them pinned, he can drop one as a free action, tie the other with a move action, and re-grapple the dropped with a standard action.
He is right.
Keep in mind that he will take penalties to each.
Move = Grapple Opponent A (no penalty)
Move = Grapple Opponent B (take penalty from grappling Opponent A on B's check and -4 from not having two hands free)
I didn't look up if tie up is a Move action (is that a Grapple check option? or is it part of Tercoti Monk?
If it is, then Free drop A, Move to tie up B, then move or standard to grapple A again.
I didn't look up if tie up is a Move action (is that a Grapple check option? or is it part of Tercoti Monk?
That sounds like a pasta. Is that anything like a cheddar monk?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Melferburque, if the rules require a grappler to use two hands, it would be impossible to grapple two people, or to maintain a grapple and grapple a second person.
If the rules required a grappler to use a standard action to maintain a grapple, then he couldn't use another to start a second grapple attempt.
But there's nothing in the rules that prohibit a dragon from grappling Dude #1 in round 1, and then maintain that grapple while grappling Dude #2 the next round, as long as everybody's within reach.
Generally, if the designers want to prohibit a character from doing something, they make that prohibition explicit.
|
|
Generally, if the designers want to prohibit a character from doing something, they make that prohibition explicit.
one of my venture officers disagrees:
"Pathfinder is descriptive, not proscriptive. If you can't find a rule saying you can, then by definition you can't. (Yes, that's simplistic, but true in any case where the rules seem ambiguous; sometimes common sense will override it, but that is the GM's decision.)"
we're not talking about a monster. we're talking about a PC doing this.
|
|
I have to agree but the question is does it apply to this situation.
Start a grapple action required standard.
You use two hands to make a grapple, if you don't have a free hand, you can still grapple at a -4 penalty.
You are grappling a target with one hand. Do you have a free hand, yes. Do you have a standard action, if you maintain with greater grapple, yes.
So by the rules you can initiate another grapple. Just because it doesn't say, "If you have the greater grapple feat, maintain that grapple as a move action using only one hand then you may use your standard action to start a grapple with another target." Doesn't mean you can't.
The rules are descriptive. Did the rules state what action/effect is required? Were those actions/effect met? If yes then it works.
Generally, if the designers want to prohibit a character from doing something, they make that prohibition explicit.one of my venture officers disagrees:
"Pathfinder is descriptive, not proscriptive. If you can't find a rule saying you can, then by definition you can't. (Yes, that's simplistic, but true in any case where the rules seem ambiguous; sometimes common sense will override it, but that is the GM's decision.)"
we're not talking about a monster. we're talking about a PC doing this.
Your venture officer is wrong. As far as I know, there are no rules saying you can swallow a pebble, but there's no reason to believe you can't. The GM exists to adjudicate situations that the rules do not cover, not just to apply the rules blindly. Otherwise, you're playing a computer game.
|
|
my problem is not with the ability to grapple two opponents. my problem is there is no additional penalty to grapple a second opponent.
the -4 penalty applies to a one handed grapple. why would the penalty be the same regardless or whether you are already trying to hold a 200 pound opponent or not? that makes absolutely no sense. it is far more difficult to engage the second grapple than the first. impossible? no. but more difficult. there should be an additional penalty.
the rule as written is broken. same with grappling and attempting to pin a cavalier while he is on his horse. if I'm the GM, next time I'm going to flat out refuse that action until someone can show me an official ruling from paizo to the contrary. I shouldn't have allowed it in the first place.
Honestly, in order to best answer Melferburque's questions, it's best to refer to the RAW (since it appears a RAW answer will be needed for him to understand). This section here has the rules relevant to grappling.
As others have said, initiating a grapple is a Standard Action. No questions asked. The maneuver says it's a Standard Action, and the Greater Grapple Feat only modifies maintaining the grapple, not initiating it.
We take your PC. Let's assume he's a Tiefling Maneuver Master Monk specializing in Grapple for simplicity and explanation purposes. (The PC's modifiers are irrelevant.) He is unarmed, with both hands free. He's facing 2 other monks from his dojo/temple/whatever. He wins initiative. He engages one of the other monks. He moves towards them as a Move Action, and initiates a Grapple, a Standard Action. He succeeds. Both characters receive the Grappled condition.
I will highlight a very important set of text relevant to your question.
In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform.
Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll.
Emphasis Mine.
When grappled, regardless of who initiated, you cannot take any sort of actions requiring 2 or more hands to perform. However, the Grapple Maneuver makes no mention of 2 hands being a requirement to make the maneuver. It actually makes mention of humanoid creatures taking penalties for not using two hands, easily implying that the Grapple maneuver only requires a single hand to perform, though doing so does make it harder, which is symbolized in the -4 penalty.
Back to the encounter. Enemy 1 tries to break the Grapple as a Standard Action, but fails. Enemy 2 charges to hit the Monk as a Full Round Action, but misses. PC's turn. He maintains the Grapple made on Enemy 1 as a Movement Action thanks to the Greater Grapple Feat. He succeeds, and pins Enemy 1. He then attempts to make a grapple against Enemy 2, who is now in reach.
The relevant text I posted before states that since he is only using one hand to make this grapple (the other has Enemy 1 in a grapple), he suffers a -4 Penalty to AC. There is no TWF or Grappled condition penalties that apply. TWF is a type of Full Attack Action. Grappling is a Standard Action. The two are mutually exclusive in action consumption and mechanics. You can't substitute attacks for Grapple attempts, since the Grapple Maneuver doesn't state you can. In addition, the Grappled Condition doesn't affect your grapple attempts:
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,
Emphasis Mine (again). Bolded (and enlarged) part shows that even with the -4 in place, there is no additional -2 taken since the combat maneuver check is made to grapple. However, if the character is using Agile Maneuvers to make the Grapple (for this example, the Monk PC is using that feat), he takes an additional -2 penalty to his Dexterity Modifier being used in the Combat Maneuver check made to grapple.
Back to the encounter. The Monk makes the attempt to grapple Enemy 2, incurring a total of a -6 Penalty (-4 from not using Two Hands, -2 from Dexterity penalty incurred from the Grappled Condition). After a nice roll, he succeeds.
Enemy 1 and Enemy 2 try to break free, but are no match for his ridiculous CMD V.S. Grappling. Monk PC then uses his Prehensile Tail as a Swift Action to draw Rope from his belongings, and uses it to tie up Enemy 1 with a successful Grapple Check. After removing his hands from Enemy 1, he can now ignore the -6 penalty he was getting from Enemy 1 and then proceeds to pin Enemy 2, and in the subsequent round tie him up with the other rope.
As far as the RAW is concerned, this is how it would run. The PC would need to technically have 3 hands (or in this case, a Prehensile Tail to have the rope on hand while he ties up Enemy 1), but he can do it with the right race and build. Whether your PC has such conditions fulfilled or not, I don't know, but if he doesn't, then he is unable to do what he says he's doing due to lack of hands (or limbs able to function as hands).
Darksol said everything i wanted to say :) You can use tentacle cloak instead of prehistine tail, i guess.
P.S Now when i think about it - pinned is more severe state of grappled. Does grappling second opponent makes you auto-pin yourself?
|
|
my problem is not with the ability to grapple two opponents. my problem is there is no additional penalty to grapple a second opponent.
the -4 penalty applies to a one handed grapple. why would the penalty be the same regardless or whether you are already trying to hold a 200 pound opponent or not? that makes absolutely no sense. it is far more difficult to engage the second grapple than the first. impossible? no. but more difficult. there should be an additional penalty.
the rule as written is broken. same with grappling and attempting to pin a cavalier while he is on his horse. if I'm the GM, next time I'm going to flat out refuse that action until someone can show me an official ruling from paizo to the contrary. I shouldn't have allowed it in the first place.
I disagree with this in that I think we have shown by RAW it works, however I do agree that it doesn't make sense realistically. I think in an earlier post you talked about two weapon fighting and I looked over at the table out of curiosity and it occurred to me that it would actually make sense to have a -4 on the first grapple with a free hand and a -8 on the "off hand" grapple. This increases the penalty making more difficult as you suggest while at the same time still allowing the option to work.
I could also see a potential feat like Double Grapple which reduces the penalty of the off hand grapple to -4 from -8 similar to two weapon fighting but requiring greater grapple and maybe a +8 BAB or monk level 8.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh good, suggestions to complicate the grapple rules. I was just saying the other day, "Man, I miss having grapple rules that required digging out the Great Compendium of Grappling instead of a mere three flowcharts to understand."
Taenia, this would make sense if the character were able to initiate a grapple Twice at the same time as a Full Attack Option, grappling up to their total hand amount. However, initiating a Grapple is a Standard Action, and the Grapple Maneuver, while it is an Attack Roll, cannot be substituted with attacks through TWF, even if you're using two different limbs to attempt the grapples.
In addition, if a character tries to grapple twice, the penalties don't accumulate like they would with a Full Attack. Also, assuming the character is unarmed with two hands free, he can use two hands to initiate the grapple, and maintain the grapple with one hand while making the other grapple the next round with the -4 penalty (or -6 if using Agile Maneuvers). Reading the relevant Grapple text:
Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll.
Emphasis Mine.
This penalty to grappling only applies when you initiate a grapple, not when you maintain a grapple already in place.
If we were doing Disarm or Trip attempts with TWF, then by all means those penalties would apply. But Grapples are Standard Actions, not Attack (or Full Attack) Actions, nor can Grapple attempts be substituted with Attacks made with Full Attack Actions like other maneuvers can. In addition, TWF can't apply because when grappling, you're using only one weapon (Unarmed Strike is considered one single weapon, which is especially true for a Monk), not two weapons (such as a Rapier and/or Shortsword off-hand).
A tad off-topic, but @ OP: Just throw in enemies with Freedom of Movement cast on them, and you'll have no problems with Mr. Grapple Happy.
|
|
Generally, if the designers want to prohibit a character from doing something, they make that prohibition explicit.one of my venture officers disagrees:
"Pathfinder is descriptive, not proscriptive. If you can't find a rule saying you can, then by definition you can't. (Yes, that's simplistic, but true in any case where the rules seem ambiguous; sometimes common sense will override it, but that is the GM's decision.)"
we're not talking about a monster. we're talking about a PC doing this.
The rules do not say you can poop.
Players cannot poop.
Generally, if the designers want to prohibit a character from doing something, they make that prohibition explicit.one of my venture officers disagrees:
"Pathfinder is descriptive, not proscriptive. If you can't find a rule saying you can, then by definition you can't. (Yes, that's simplistic, but true in any case where the rules seem ambiguous; sometimes common sense will override it, but that is the GM's decision.)"
we're not talking about a monster. we're talking about a PC doing this.
The rules do not say you can poop.
Players cannot poop.
And then everybody turns into bloated sacks of flesh and die.
Also, the rules don't say your characters (and NPC's alike) can have sex.
So Succubi are useless and people can't reproduce.
This is the kind of game you get into when you go with a "RAW is LAW". Because then it turns into "RAW is WAR".
|
(darksol's very clear, reasoned, RAW explanation of how grappling two creatures works)
Melferburque, you have been shown this is legal and actionable by RAW. You may not like how it works, but there you go. No official ruling is needed.
Instead of ignoring RAW, use it to your advantage. Have both mooks full attack their grappler. Have a tied-up target do a strength check to burst their bonds (which is ridiculously easy for melee mooks as their levels increase). Make sure the grappler is heeding the action costs for grappling.
|
|
I have yet to see any clarification. I'm seeing the same argument being made over and over with a slanted interpretation of a vague ruling. RAW states you can make a one-handed grapple. it does NOT say anything about grappling two creatures simultaneously.
RAW is not explicit. as a GM, I'm going to rule using common sense until I am told otherwise by a VO or someone from Paizo. I have two local VL's and five local GM's who have agreed with my interpretation. the "consensus on this thread" doesn't carry much weight.
the player interpretation of the rule reduces the fun and challenge for everyone else at the table. I have had to actually apologize to new players who were nonplussed at their first game because of a grappler. if nothing else, it's bordering on a violation of the "don't be a jerk" rule.
|
|
my problem with the -4 penalty is it only says -4 for grappling one handed. it doesn't say -4 while grappling another opponent.
I have a hard time believing RAI intended such a light penalty for attempting to grapple a second opponent. it seems much more likely to me that a player has a weapon in one hand and is attempting a "c'mere you" with a free hand.
I fail to see how a one handed grapple while not being grappled yourself (ie, c'mere you) is the same difficulty as grappling an opponent while already holding another. holding an item in one hand is much, much easier than holding an unwilling opponent with one hand.
the second grapple should be at a much higher penalty than -4. doesn't mean I think it should be impossible, but a -4 is not right, and ends up with severely unbalanced encounters.
*this* is my problem with the RAW argument. RAW does not address a double grapple. the only time RAW does come close is the monster grab ability, and the monster takes what, a -20 for the second?
|
Ok, because reality is being brought in here, I'll reference reality.
I wrestled for 5 years in high school. I can tell you that grabbing someone (the initial grapple) then grabbing someone else (the second) is relatively easy, even if the initial is struggling.
Pinning either of them (where pin means restrict movement beyond just holding on), however, is nigh impossible.
Just my 2cp.
|
|
Ok, because reality is being brought in here, I'll reference reality.
I wrestled for 5 years in high school. I can tell you that grabbing someone (the initial grapple) then grabbing someone else (the second) is relatively easy, even if the initial is struggling.
Pinning either of them (where pin means restrict movement beyond just holding on), however, is nigh impossible.Just my 2cp.
I would even be fine with that. in the game I ran, however, it was done in a single round.
free action: release #1
std action: pin #2
move action: re-grapple #1
the CMB rolls were ridiculous.