Is it intended for monsters to grab -> constrict -> release -> grab -> constrict in one attack sequence?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 206 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Devilkiller wrote:

I'm surprised there's not a clause preventing the shaken condition from Final Embrace Horror from stacking.

Regarding the Froghemoth, one surprised our goblin party and swallowed my PC, but on his turn he ate his way out and killed it. Swallow Whole can do a lot of damage, but it is often a bad idea tactically speaking. Folks I play with sometimes joke about an archetype like "Internal Warrior" which focuses on getting swallowed and then attacking from inside (maybe with some resist acid and DR abilities)

Would the Internal Warrior's capstone be "Shhpshnsh"


If the Internal Warrior was a caster it would need some spells to make it delicious, kind of like Beguiling Gift with yourself as the object (a snack)

The linked comic reminded me of an old debate involving grappling and Fire Shield though. Intuitively it seems like grabbing a guy covered in magic flames should be a bad idea, but some folks insist that the RAW says otherwise.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
All I'm saying is that animals with Grab have varied tactics, and it's worth considering all of them
Right, but within the actual rules, are they supposed to? That's the question being asked.

There are no rules on tactics, and there wont be.


I think claudekennilol was asking whether grabbing and releasing an opponent multiple times is "supposed" to be legal, not whether DMs should play animals as tactically savvy enough to employ it.

I could be wrong. I usually am.


Snowblind wrote:
Devilkiller wrote:

I'm surprised there's not a clause preventing the shaken condition from Final Embrace Horror from stacking.

Regarding the Froghemoth, one surprised our goblin party and swallowed my PC, but on his turn he ate his way out and killed it. Swallow Whole can do a lot of damage, but it is often a bad idea tactically speaking. Folks I play with sometimes joke about an archetype like "Internal Warrior" which focuses on getting swallowed and then attacking from inside (maybe with some resist acid and DR abilities)

Would the Internal Warrior's capstone be "Shhpshnsh"

I was in a campaign where one of our characters was swallowed whole. His response was to "empty out the contents of his Bag of Holding!"

Grand Lodge

Devilkiller wrote:

I think claudekennilol was asking whether grabbing and releasing an opponent multiple times is "supposed" to be legal, not whether DMs should play animals as tactically savvy enough to employ it.

I could be wrong. I usually am.

Yeah, that's what I was going for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:
Devilkiller wrote:

I think claudekennilol was asking whether grabbing and releasing an opponent multiple times is "supposed" to be legal, not whether DMs should play animals as tactically savvy enough to employ it.

I could be wrong. I usually am.

Yeah, that's what I was going for.

"Supposed to be legal" and "is legal" are 2 different things. It seems pretty clear to me that it is legal. Being the one in control of a grapple, it makes it quite clear that releasing it is a Free Action, so a Giant Crab that Grabs its opponent may well prosecute its Grapple against 1 opponent in subsequent rounds or just keep attacking and Grabbing with its Claws, never bothering to attempt to Pin and Damage its prey.

Is that the Intent of the rules? I can only speculate, but I'm going to guess yes. The Grab Ability specifically qualifies the Grapple Check as an attempt to "start a Grapple." In other words, it is illegal for a Giant Crab to attack with 1 Claw, Grab and Initiate a Grapple, then attack with the 2nd Claw, Grab and Pin, and on subsequent rounds make 2 Claw Attacks/round, Grabbing and Damaging its Pinned Opponent.

The fact that Grab doesn't allow that suggests to me that it is indeed intended to be used sometimes as sort of a catch-and-release tactic, even amongst animals, say to simulate a lioness fighting off a pack of hyenas by Grabbing and Raking 1 hyena, then letting it go to keep its Dex mod to defend herself against the rest of the pack, or maybe after raking 1 or 2 hyenas taking a Standard Action to make an Intimidate Check to get the rest of the pack to back off, necessarily letting go of the last hyena she Grabbed, since she didn't spend her Standard Action to Maintain the Grapple.


I think it's like the T-Rex Karate technique.

By RAW, a T-Rex can make a full-attack using unarmed strikes and use his bite as a secondary natural attack. Generally, this is more effective than just making a single bite attack against PCs, especially those with low AC or who have ways of deflecting single attacks.

But as GM you're probably not supposed to do that.


But as a GM you could do that.

It's rules legal, but some people think it's dumb. Others don't. That's why this thread is still going.


alexd1976 wrote:
some people think it's dumb.

I'd phrase that as: some people think it's unrepresentative of how actual animals fight, and some think it's unfair on the players because it makes monsters more dangerous than intended.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Y there's always that pesky rule that says the DM is the final arbiter on how many free actions you can do in a round. ...

However, he better be constant on how many free actions he allows or else face mutiny.


Matthew Downie wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
some people think it's dumb.
I'd phrase that as: some people think it's unrepresentative of how actual animals fight, and some think it's unfair on the players because it makes monsters more dangerous than intended.

Sure.

I wouldn't have a T-Rex do karate, cause I don't imagine they ever would. I do imagine a snake would double constrict.

Of course, now I'm thinking about T-Rexes and karate... hrm. :D


Matthew Downie wrote:

I think it's like the T-Rex Karate technique.

By RAW, a T-Rex can make a full-attack using unarmed strikes and use his bite as a secondary natural attack. Generally, this is more effective than just making a single bite attack against PCs, especially those with low AC or who have ways of deflecting single attacks.

But as GM you're probably not supposed to do that.

A realistic animal might be well-described by using unarmed strikes instead of their natural attacks. A Bull elephant fighting with another bull elephant over the right to mate with a female in heat behaves very differently than if he is charging a hungry lion trying to pull a calf away from the herd.

We can only speculate about T-rex behavior, but there might be times like the one I described where the T-rex considers its full natural attack to be inappropriate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:
I wouldn't have a T-Rex do karate, cause I don't imagine they ever would.

What if you imagine the T-Rex doing foot stomps instead of karate? That's an unarmed strike too.

Grand Lodge

Anyone else have an opinion on this?


claudekennilol wrote:
Anyone else have an opinion on this?

Can't stop thinking about Karate T-Rex. Must... use... in... game...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Ok... sing with me...

Everybody is T-Rex fighting!


thaX wrote:

Ok... sing with me...

Everybody is T-Rex fighting!

OMG I actually LOLed


hmm, can't do it with a monk/druid wildshape. It will have to be an awakened t-rex monk.


DM Livgin wrote:
hmm, can't do it with a monk/druid wildshape. It will have to be an awakened t-rex monk.

Half Dragon adds +2 INT... :D

Flying T-Rex Dragon STYYYYYYYLE!


The kickboxing T-Rex was actually considered by some to be an important tool in the GM arsenal at one point - the best counter to the original Crane Wing being able to auto-block his solitary attack.


All joking aside, one of my favorite monsters is the half dragon T Rex.

Scary scary stuff.

Grand Lodge

Not exactly the opinions I was asking for >_<


2 people marked this as a favorite.

These aren't the opinions you asked for, but they are the opinions you deserved...

*spoken in batman voice*


My opinion is that maybe one day there will be a FAQ. In the meantime I try to play Grapple pretty conservatively.

Tekken 3 had a little dinosaur named Gon who looked kind of like a T-Rex with boxing gloves.

Sovereign Court

I think grab-constrict-release-grab-constrict is an abomination. I will not do it as a GM, I will not endeavour to gain it as a player.

I'll suffer it if someone does it to me, but I'll remark (once) that I really don't believe this is how the game is intended to work.

I think it's a glitch in the rules that can be abused to horrible effect. And it should be gotten rid of.

Easy enough: rewrite it to happen at the end of the grabbing monster's turn if it's still holding you. That way it only triggers once, which is fair.


@Ascalaphus - I basically agree with you though something which can beat both your AC and CMD that easily is probably going to destroy you pretty quickly anyhow. Meanwhile one 4th level spell makes you completely immune to all this (granted, Trip gets countered by a 3rd level spell - Dirty Trick is much more versatile but also harder to master and rarely seen on monsters)


Outside of highly intelligent creatures, this one falls into "DBAD" territory for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:
Anyone else have an opinion on this?

It appears to be legal but not intended. I think that's practically a consensus. If you're a GM, you could use it if your group is having too easy a time, but there are other ways to add challenge. If you're a player and have access to this, ask yourself whether you want your GM doing the same to you.


Devilkiller wrote:

My opinion is that maybe one day there will be a FAQ. In the meantime I try to play Grapple pretty conservatively.

Tekken 3 had a little dinosaur named Gon who looked kind of like a T-Rex with boxing gloves.

I kicked so many asses with Gon


I mostly just recall that Gon could knock people across the screen and that his end credits were pretty funny. Eddie Gordo was a lot easier to use, and the little Chinese girl worked pretty well too as I recall - Xiaoyue maybe? Anyhow, I guess we're getting a little off topic here...

Back on the subject of grappling, I'll paraphrase Jim Morrison by saying, "Where are the FAQs we were promised?" (I don't mean to seem especially impatient, but I do hope to get "official" rulings before my grapple based PC is retired)


Devilkiller wrote:

I mostly just recall that Gon could knock people across the screen and that his end credits were pretty funny. Eddie Gordo was a lot easier to use, and the little Chinese girl worked pretty well too as I recall - Xiaoyue maybe? Anyhow, I guess we're getting a little off topic here...

Back on the subject of grappling, I'll paraphrase Jim Morrison by saying, "Where are the FAQs we were promised?" (I don't mean to seem especially impatient, but I do hope to get "official" rulings before my grapple based PC is retired)

Aren't we due a whole bunch of FAQs that have yet to materialize?

I even heard at one stage that there would be a Simulacrum FAQ, but it was a while back so I don't think it is happening.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think it is legal but the Grab would take a -20...based on my reading of Grab and Grapple roles..

[url=http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/additionalMonsters/universalMonsterRules.html#grab]Grab PRD [/ur] entry.

Grab (Ex) If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply to 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. A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check.

If you chose to not take the -20 then the grapple is done normally, which is a standard action not a melee action so they would not get the full round of attacks.

This is how I would rule it but I agree it is sort of grey area


That's not how actions work.

The combat maneuvers section give you the ability to initiate a grapple as a standard action. The Grab ability gives you the ability to initiate a grapple as a free action. If you attack with grab, you aren't using the combat maneuvers section action, but a completely separate action specific to the Grab ability. It's like using an attack action to attack vs using a full action or a charge or spring attack. They all involve attacks, but they aren't all attack actions.

Besides, the -20 penalty option doesn't change the action economy of the grapple in any way. It only causes a -20 penalty and prevents the grappler gaining the grappled condition. If normal grappling with Grab is a standard action, then so is grappling with just the part of the body doing the grab. Also, attacking at all is at least a standard action normally, so another standard action to grapple on top of that isn't possible (i.e. the ability is useless under that interpretation).

Grand Lodge

Anyone else have any thoughts on this recently?


claudekennilol wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Only intelligent critters would do it. Animals grab and hold on.
Is that actually backed up in the rules anywhere?

Against RAW, no.

It would, however, be very meta-gamey for the GM to run an unintelligent creature in this manner.


Snowlilly wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Only intelligent critters would do it. Animals grab and hold on.
Is that actually backed up in the rules anywhere?

Against RAW, no.

It would, however, be very meta-gamey for the GM to run an unintelligent creature in this manner.

I disagree. It seems well in keeping with the real, natural world for creatures to mix up their tactics.

I saw a nature documentary where a rattlesnake saw a king snake coming up to eat it. The rattlesnake didn't bother rattling because it realized that the king snake was deaf.

I once read in the Wikipedia entry for black mambas that they have different kinds of biting styles. When preying on other creatures, they sometimes latch on and hold.

Wikipedia, Black Mamba, Diet wrote:
it typically will hold onto a bird till it stops struggling to escape.

Whey they bite to ward off threats they make rapid, short jabbing bites.

Wikipedia, Black Mamba, Behavior and ecology wrote:
During the threat display, any sudden movement by the intruder may provoke the mamba into a series of rapid strikes leading to severe envenomation.

I mentioned this example last year. A lioness, bringing down a wildebeest would latch on, grappling with the beast seeking that sweet throat hold for her jaws, meanwhile the rest of her sisters jump and latch on, too, bringing the creature down.

Lionesses Hunting

But a lioness surrounded by a pack of hyenas might not do that. She might grapple and Rake one of them, but the others might attack her if she didn't let go, so she might, perhaps if she caught and rakes a few of them, she might then attempt an Intimidate Check, requiring a standard action, requiring releasing the last Hyena from its Grapple.

hyaenidae

The Froghemoth has a reputation for being randomly destructive. Sometimes, it might lash out with its tongue, drag one adventurer to it's maw, then Swallow it Whole. Sometimes it might randomly attack all of the party, trying to grapple all of them, having to release some of them, disgorging one of them to swallow another.

Froghemoth wrote:
the froghemoth may act like an animal, but it never seems fully “comfortable” in its environs. Perpetually ill-tempered, a froghemoth often seems to kill simply for the sake of killing—vomiting up partially digested meals in favor of new prey when it encounters such.

It's a Froghemoth thing.

The stupidest animals can be surprisingly smart, and engage in surprising behavior. Catch-and-release grappling on the part of monsters vis a vis PCs does not necessarily strain verisimilitude.


claudekennilol wrote:
Anyone else have any thoughts on this recently?

It's legal but I could only see it being used in very narrow situations - a giant octopus, for instance, using his 8 attacks to attack 8 different sailors and dump them off next to him in the water might be reasonable. All on the same target, though, seems like a particularly strong variety of Stilton.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
All I'm saying is that animals with Grab have varied tactics, and it's worth considering all of them
Right, but within the actual rules, are they supposed to? That's the question being asked.
There are no rules on tactics, and there wont be.

You see, the question is relatively simple and isn't about tactics:

"With the constriction ability you can constrict the same target more than once in a round?"

Current RAW say "Yes". Game balance suggest "No". If we keep the RAW answer the CR of a few creatures should be bumped by 1-2 point as potential damage increase greatly.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Y there's always that pesky rule that says the DM is the final arbiter on how many free actions you can do in a round. ...
However, he better be constant on how many free actions he allows or else face mutiny.

Not at all. Free actions aren't a fixed number and the number of free actions allowed can vary greatly based on the kind of free action you want to perform.


Here's how I view Constrict-

The wording on constrict is weird, but the intent as I understand it is for Constrict to be a source of bonus damage that applies on all grapples.

So it's a "rider." It happens on any successful grapple attempt, regardless of what the normal end result of the grapple is.

Say a monster with grab bites a character and initiates a grapple. Normally that grapple doesn't deal additional damage. With Constrict it does.

The next round, the monster grapples for damage. It gets it's grapple damage and it's constrict damage.

A creature with multiple attacks and Grab shouldn't be releasing between grapple attempts. Technically it's rules-legal, but it is a loophole that doesn't make any kind of sense. It's overpowered, and it kind of kills immersion and verisimilitude.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

[

I mentioned this example last year. A lioness, bringing down a wildebeest would latch on, grappling with the beast seeking that sweet throat hold for her jaws, meanwhile the rest of her sisters jump and latch on, too, bringing the creature down.

Lionesses Hunting

But a lioness surrounded by a pack of hyenas might not do that. She might grapple and Rake one of them, but the others might attack her if she didn't let go, so she might, perhaps if she caught and rakes a few of them, she might then attempt an Intimidate Check, requiring a standard action, requiring releasing the last Hyena from its Grapple.

hyaenidae

You know that you can't rack on the first round of a grab unless you are pouncing? And that you need to charge at leas 10' to pounce?

It is not possible to do that while surrounded, unless the creatures surrounding you stay at least 10' away, something fairly improbable.

Note that a lion can't attack 3 different creatures with its pounce ability and rake all of them. It is a charge, so you can target only 1 creature.

PRD wrote:
Rake (Ex) A creature with this special attack gains extra natural attacks under certain conditions, typically when it grapples its foe. In addition to the options available to all grapplers, a monster with the rake ability gains two free claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe. The bonus and damage caused by these attacks is included in the creature's description. A monster with the rake ability must begin its turn already grappling to use its rake—it can't begin a grapple and rake in the same turn.

Most animals when fighting either grab, constrict and keep the hold or attack but don't try to grab.

In the game the constrict ability give an extra attack as a free action, but in the real world constricting isn't instantaneous.


Diego Rossi wrote:
In the game the constrict ability give an extra attack as a free action, but in the real world constricting isn't...

This is incorrect. The Constrict rules state that constrict damage is automatic and happen in addition to any other effects of a Grapple check.

Scarab Sages

Diego Rossi wrote:
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Y there's always that pesky rule that says the DM is the final arbiter on how many free actions you can do in a round. ...
However, he better be constant on how many free actions he allows or else face mutiny.
Not at all. Free actions aren't a fixed number and the number of free actions allowed can vary greatly based on the kind of free action you want to perform.

While the rule is in place to prevent weirdness, it also shouldn't regularly be used for backhanded nerfing.

You are right, though, that there are examples of different free actions having different suggested limits. Such as the suggestion that it is fair to say a player can one-handed release a two-handed weapon and put their hand back on the weapon once each a turn. But then again, I don't think it is intended that a player only be able to take 2 free actions in a turn... as throwing weapon combat takes at least 6 by 20(full BAB class)... and could take more. 5 for BAB and 1 for rapid shot with no other abilities or feats. Same with Gunslingers.

Instead of limiting free actions to so many per turn, which is all the rule says, I think the rule should empower the GM to limit certain action types to so many free actions per turn. Thus, a musket using gunslinger would be able to take 8 free actions to release, regrab, reload x 6.(Given a gunslinger which may free action reload their musket)


Yeah, the rules aren't really specific on how/why the Free Actions may be limited, I think many people default to understanding it as a simple "X actions per turn" (where the GM can only decide what X is) simply because the game generally works that way, but there is no RAW reason to limit the paradigm to such a generic numeric mechanic - if that was the intent there is no reason to leave it so vague and up to the GM... So there's no reason the GM shouldn't be able to consider the exact type AND number of Free Actions have already taken, when judging if you can also take another Free Action of the same or different type.

Now, how does that apply to the Grab/Release topic of thread...

Well, first, I can't say that Grab/Release tactics should be seen as sole domain of "intelligent" opponents or some such, it basically lets you double the damage on all your attacks, so it's not some arcane chess move, it's just moar damage. I mean, the total damage output is identical to if they split up attacks vs. many targets, so it's not clear why this is a violation of expectations. IMHO, the issue re: intelligence/tactics more comes down to target selection, and if they decide to "focus fire" vs. split up attacks vs. many targets.

I think people also don't consider the other tactical options that Multi-Attack-Grab-Constrict monsters have, that dropping the Grapple would run counter to. Namely, using the free 'move adjacent to you' aspect to put the victims in a bad spot, e.g. in the water. Rather than focus firing a full attack on one target to kill it faster, which leaves the monster in same position and vulnerable to attack from allies of it's victim, a Kraken can single attack-grab and Move away (out of range of allies, and even the victim themself), reducing it's own vulnerability while putting victim in position to be killed easily (further moves can drag victim underwater etc where they are even more vulnerable, once that target is dead, monster can return to attack another, one at a time).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Doomed Hero wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
In the game the constrict ability give an extra attack as a free action, but in the real world constricting isn't...
This is incorrect. The Constrict rules state that constrict damage is automatic and happen in addition to any other effects of a Grapple check.
PRD wrote:
Constrict (Ex) A creature with this special attack can crush an opponent, dealing bludgeoning damage, when it makes a successful grapple check (in addition to any other effects caused by a successful check, including additional damage). The amount of damage is given in the creature's entry and is typically equal to the amount of damage caused by the creature's melee attack.

Successful grapple check.

Yes, I was using an imprecise language.
If is extra damage, but still, in the real world, it require time to be applied, it isn't something that happen instantaneously.

Quandary wrote:

Yeah, the rules aren't really specific on how/why the Free Actions may be limited, I think many people default to understanding it as a simple "X actions per turn" (where the GM can only decide what X is) simply because the game generally works that way, but there is no RAW reason to limit the paradigm to such a generic numeric mechanic - if that was the intent there is no reason to leave it so vague and up to the GM... So there's no reason the GM shouldn't be able to consider the exact type AND number of Free Actions have already taken, when judging if you can also take another Free Action of the same or different type.

Now, how does that apply to the Grab/Release topic of thread...

Well, first, I can't say that Grab/Release tactics should be seen as sole domain of "intelligent" opponents or some such, it basically lets you double the damage on all your attacks, so it's not some arcane chess move, it's just moar damage. I mean, the total damage output is identical to if they split up attacks vs. many targets, so it's not clear why this is a violation of expectations. IMHO, the issue re: intelligence/tactics more comes down to target selection, and if they decide to "focus fire" vs. split up attacks vs. many targets.

I think people also don't consider the other tactical options that Multi-Attack-Grab-Constrict monsters have, that dropping the Grapple would run counter to. Namely, using the free 'move adjacent to you' aspect to put the victims in a bad spot, e.g. in the water. Rather than focus firing a full attack on one target to kill it faster, which leaves the monster in same position and vulnerable to attack from allies of it's victim, a Kraken can single attack-grab and Move away (out of range of allies, and even the victim themself), reducing it's own vulnerability while putting victim in position to be killed easily (further moves can drag victim underwater etc where they are even more vulnerable, once that target is dead, monster can return to attack another, one at a time).

My problem, mostly, is applying it to several attacks in sequence against the same target.

The classic image of a giant octopus grabbing several targets at the same time? Perfect. It would apply the constrict damage once to each target.

The same octopus grabbing a single target with several tentacles? I would have it add the constrict damage only once, maybe with an increase to the damage based on how many tentacles have hit.

Maybe in RL that would deal constrict damage multiple times but if we klook game balance it seem excessive.

Having the same giant octopus release its tentacles so that it can attack again 8 times the next round and add 8 times the constrict damage, seem decidedly a stretch. Generally that kind of anima don't release the prey after capturing it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Lorewalker wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Y there's always that pesky rule that says the DM is the final arbiter on how many free actions you can do in a round. ...
However, he better be constant on how many free actions he allows or else face mutiny.
Not at all. Free actions aren't a fixed number and the number of free actions allowed can vary greatly based on the kind of free action you want to perform.

While the rule is in place to prevent weirdness, it also shouldn't regularly be used for backhanded nerfing.

You are right, though, that there are examples of different free actions having different suggested limits. Such as the suggestion that it is fair to say a player can one-handed release a two-handed weapon and put their hand back on the weapon once each a turn. But then again, I don't think it is intended that a player only be able to take 2 free actions in a turn... as throwing weapon combat takes at least 6 by 20(full BAB class)... and could take more. 5 for BAB and 1 for rapid shot with no other abilities or feats. Same with Gunslingers.

Instead of limiting free actions to so many per turn, which is all the rule says, I think the rule should empower the GM to limit certain action types to so many free actions per turn. Thus, a musket using gunslinger would be able to take 8 free actions to release, regrab, reload x 6.(Given a gunslinger which may free action reload their musket)

Exactly what I intended.

If we are speaking of drawing and throwing weapons the limit should be based on the BAB and applicable feats.

For a druid or ranger handling his animal companion is a free action, but activating 20 different tricks in a round is well beyond any reasonable limit.
Often even 2 can bee too many.


Diego Rossi wrote:
the question is relatively isn't about tactics:

Sure it is. It might be about other stuff, too, but varied tactics are totally in the pervue of this thread.

It is however, not about RAW.

Diego Rossi wrote:
You know that you can't rack on the first round of a grab unless you are pouncing? And that you need to charge at leas 10' to pounce?

Maybe, whatever. It's not really to the point. The point being that real lionesses use varied tactics in varied situations, sometimes grappling single opponents, sometimes keeping aloof, slashing and biting to keep her guard up.

Diego Rossi wrote:
Game balance suggest "No"

I don't see how it unbalances the game to give the GM more options.

Scarab Sages

Diego Rossi wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Y there's always that pesky rule that says the DM is the final arbiter on how many free actions you can do in a round. ...
However, he better be constant on how many free actions he allows or else face mutiny.
Not at all. Free actions aren't a fixed number and the number of free actions allowed can vary greatly based on the kind of free action you want to perform.

While the rule is in place to prevent weirdness, it also shouldn't regularly be used for backhanded nerfing.

You are right, though, that there are examples of different free actions having different suggested limits. Such as the suggestion that it is fair to say a player can one-handed release a two-handed weapon and put their hand back on the weapon once each a turn. But then again, I don't think it is intended that a player only be able to take 2 free actions in a turn... as throwing weapon combat takes at least 6 by 20(full BAB class)... and could take more. 5 for BAB and 1 for rapid shot with no other abilities or feats. Same with Gunslingers.

Instead of limiting free actions to so many per turn, which is all the rule says, I think the rule should empower the GM to limit certain action types to so many free actions per turn. Thus, a musket using gunslinger would be able to take 8 free actions to release, regrab, reload x 6.(Given a gunslinger which may free action reload their musket)

Exactly what I intended.

If we are speaking of drawing and throwing weapons the limit should be based on the BAB and applicable feats.

For a druid or ranger handling his animal companion is a free action, but activating 20 different tricks in a round is well beyond any reasonable limit.
Often even 2 can bee too many.

And yet there can be archetypes that have several ACs, and even with one AC they should be able to both say "Go there" and then "Attack that" in the same round. I think you limit too quickly and too stringently, just from the few examples you use.


Diego Rossi wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
All I'm saying is that animals with Grab have varied tactics, and it's worth considering all of them
Right, but within the actual rules, are they supposed to? That's the question being asked.
There are no rules on tactics, and there wont be.

You see, the question is relatively simple and isn't about tactics:

"With the constriction ability you can constrict the same target more than once in a round?"

Current RAW say "Yes". Game balance suggest "No". If we keep the RAW answer the CR of a few creatures should be bumped by 1-2 point as potential damage increase greatly.

Is it actually unbalancing though, or does it just seem "obviously wrong"? Do you have any numbers to back up your game balance claim?

101 to 150 of 206 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Is it intended for monsters to grab -> constrict -> release -> grab -> constrict in one attack sequence? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.