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


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 206 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Sigh, why it has refreshed and deleted everything?

Let's check the Giant Octopus against a typical CR 8 monster

Typical values:
hp 100 AC 21 primary attack +15 secondary attack +11 average damage (for a creature with high damage) 35 Primary ability DC 19 Secondary 12 high save +11, low save +7

Giant octopus - CR 8:
hp 90 AC 18 bite 13 tentacles attack 11 average damage , 81,5 Poison DC 17 fort +11 Ref +12, Will +7

HP CR 7 AC CR 5 To hit, CR 8 Damage CR 17 Saves CR 8

Now the same but with only 1 constrict attack:

Giant octopus CR 8:
hp 90 AC 18 bite 13 tentacles attack 11 average damage , 50 Poison DC 17fort +11 Ref +12, Will +7

HP CR 7 AC CR 5 To hit, CR 8 Damage CR 11 Saves CR 8

The potential damage of a giant octopus that constrict with each attack is that of a CR 17 monster, constricting only once it is that of a CR 11 monster.

Ever assuming that its attack bonus will keep the damage down when it meet higher CR characters the damage is out of scale for a creature of its CR.


thorin001 wrote:
voideternal wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I'll also be one to advocate not playing the creature's Intelligence (or to be more accurate, natural instincts) properly: A creature who is not sentient (or fairly intelligent in some manner, such as maybe a Worg), would not be smart enough to grab and regrab over again, meaning those tactics cannot be emulated.
I don't know... It's one thing for the GM to claim the 2 Int creature can't engineer bridges. It's another thing for the GM to claim the 2 Int creature doesn't know how to optimally use its own natural weapons that it was born with and used repeatedly for survival since birth.
Only in some aspects. How often have you seen an animal let go of its food?

I saw my puppy (who was not yet 1 year old) do the exact scenario described upthread to a small varmint.

It's a natural sequence of events for the critter to bite, constrict, release, bite, constrict, etc. until the food is dead.

The conceptual problem is that people are separating the grapple/grab from the constrict (as separate things) -- they are one and the same. Constrict just adds damage to the grapple.

If it is legal to grapple/release multiple times a round as a full attack, then it is no different than adding damage to the grapple checks when the creature also has constrict.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Let's try with another creature with multiple grab attacks and constrict:

Giant Crab CR 2

Typical values:
hp 20 AC 14 primary attack +4 secondary attack +3 average damage (for a creature with high damage) 10 Primary ability DC 13 Secondary 5 Best save 5 worst save 1

Giant Crab:
hp 19 AC 16 claws attack 4 average damage 18 Saves fort +5 Ref +2, Will +1

HP CR 2 AC CR 3 Attack CR 2 Damage CR 4 Saves Cr 2

With only 1 constrict:
Damage 13,5 CR 3

So for the crab the damage is "only" 2 CR above a typical exemplar of a CR 2 monster, but it has no value below that of a CR 2 monster in any field and the AC of a CR 3, so I think we can consider it a a powerful exemplar of a CR 2 monster with only 1 constrict, with two it move in the CR 3 field.

I think it has been demonstrated that the ability to do multiple constrict in a round is well worth a Cr increase.

feel free to suggest other creatures for this test.


The stat blocks obviously do not take the FAQ into account.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Quintain wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
voideternal wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I'll also be one to advocate not playing the creature's Intelligence (or to be more accurate, natural instincts) properly: A creature who is not sentient (or fairly intelligent in some manner, such as maybe a Worg), would not be smart enough to grab and regrab over again, meaning those tactics cannot be emulated.
I don't know... It's one thing for the GM to claim the 2 Int creature can't engineer bridges. It's another thing for the GM to claim the 2 Int creature doesn't know how to optimally use its own natural weapons that it was born with and used repeatedly for survival since birth.
Only in some aspects. How often have you seen an animal let go of its food?

I saw my puppy (who was not yet 1 year old) do the exact scenario described upthread to a small varmint.

It's a natural sequence of events for the critter to bite, constrict, release, bite, constrict, etc. until the food is dead.

The conceptual problem is that people are separating the grapple/grab from the constrict (as separate things) -- they are one and the same. Constrict just adds damage to the grapple.

If it is legal to grapple/release multiple times a round as a full attack, then it is no different than adding damage to the grapple checks when the creature also has constrict.

A dog don't do what the game call "constrict". Some kind of dog do something similar, trying to crush the windpipe of their target, but that, in game, is factored in their bite damage.

Dogs that do that generally don't release the target after biting it.

Domestic cats do something similar, but but it is explained very differently. The ethologist opinion is that it is a hunting reflex: they see the prey running and pounce on it, but, as they are domestic cats and well feed, generally tehy aren't interested in killing and eating it, so they release it. But as soon as it move again the hunting reflex is triggered again and they pounce again.
I don't know if it is the same for dogs.


Quote:


Some kind of dog do something similar, trying to crush the windpipe of their target, but that, in game, is factored in their bite damage.

Dogs that do that generally don't release the target after biting it.

When crushing the windpipe, the animal will need to release *slightly* in order to re-establish their hold on the prey against the struggles of the prey animal.

This mechanic is not much different.

Like I said earlier, all constrict does is add bludgeoning damage to the grapple/grab activity, it isn't described as continuous damage like everyone thinks it should be described.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Knight Magenta wrote:
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?
Quintain wrote:
The stat blocks obviously do not take the FAQ into account.

So, yes, we agree that the CR of monster that would benefit from multiple grab+constrict attacks don't reflect the value of that ability.

Instead it reflect the CR of a creature capable to make a single constrict attack each round.
I don't think it is because it don't reflect the FAQ, it reflect it perfectly, it is because it don't include the damage of 2+ successful constrict attack in one round.


Diego Rossi wrote:

Sigh, why it has refreshed and deleted everything?

Let's check the Giant Octopus against a typical CR 8 monster

Typical values:
hp 100 AC 21 primary attack +15 secondary attack +11 average damage (for a creature with high damage) 35 Primary ability DC 19 Secondary 12 high save +11, low save +7

Giant octopus - CR 8:
hp 90 AC 18 bite 13 tentacles attack 11 average damage , 81,5 Poison DC 17 fort +11 Ref +12, Will +7

HP CR 7 AC CR 5 To hit, CR 8 Damage CR 17 Saves CR 8

Now the same but with only 1 constrict attack:

Giant octopus CR 8:
hp 90 AC 18 bite 13 tentacles attack 11 average damage , 50 Poison DC 17fort +11 Ref +12, Will +7

HP CR 7 AC CR 5 To hit, CR 8 Damage CR 11 Saves CR 8

The potential damage of a giant octopus that constrict with each attack is that of a CR 17 monster, constricting only once it is that of a CR 11 monster.

Ever assuming that its attack bonus will keep the damage down when it meet higher CR characters the damage is out of scale for a creature of its CR.

I can't really follow your math, but It does not look like you took CMB or attack bonus into account. That is not how you do simulations.

Lets consider the following:
Level 8 fighter vs Octopus.
They are going to stand and trade full attacks. (The fighter has water breathing and is immune to poison).

The Relevent stats are:
Octopus
AC 18
HP 90
bite +13 1d8+5
8 tentacles +11 1d4+2 damage + grab
constrict 1d4+2
cmb +19

Fighter
Str 16 (+2)
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 10
Cha 8
items: (33k)
+2 fullplate = 5650
+2 ring = 8000
+1 amulet = 2000
+2 longsword = 8300
+2 belt = 4000
potion of water breathing = 750
total = 28750

AC: 12 armor + 2 dex + 2 deflection + 1 natural + 2 armor training = 29
CMD: 4 strength + 2 dex + 8 bab + 2 deflection = 26
HP: 10 level 1 + 7*5.5 from HD + 8*2 Con + 8 Favored class = 72
Attack: +4 strength + 1 weapon focus + 2 sword + 1 weapon training + 8 bab - 3 power attack = +16
Damage = 1d8 + 2 weapon + 6 strength + 9 power attack + 2 weapon spec +1 weapon training = 24.5 average

Now lets do some math.
Damage per round is <chance to hit> * <damage per hit> + <chance to crit> * <chance to confirm> * <crit multiplier - 1> * <damage per hit>
Octopus dpr
bite -> +13 vs AC 29 = 0.25*9.5 + 0.05*0.25*9.5 = 2.5
11 tentacle -> +11 vs AC 29 = 11 * (0.15*4.5 + 0.05*0.15*4.5) = 7.8
11 constrict attempts -> +11 to hit, + 19 cmb vs AC 29 and CMB 26 = 11 * (0.15*0.55*4.5) = 4.1

total with constrict on grab = 14.4
total without constrict = 10.3
So it takes the octopus 5.03 rounds to kill the fighter with constrict and 6.99 without.

Fighter dpr
2 attacks at +16/+11 vs AC 18 gives
0.95 * 24.5 + 0.1*0.95*24.5 + 0.7 * 24.5 + 0.1*0.7*24.5 = 44.5

So the fighter kills the octopus in 2 turns. Since he is wielding a 1-handed weapon, he can attack even if he gets grappled by the octopus.

results
The octopus is actually under-powered. He does not present a credible threat to a fighter that has spent 4,000 gold on booze and 6 feats on skill focus (basket weaving). The most likely result is that either the fighter gets a lucky crit and one-shots the octopus, or the octopus takes 40 damage in a turn and jets away to fight another day. The end.

If you want to prove that something is broken, please do at least this level of analysis. You need to find at least one data point that supports your argument.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knight Magenta wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Sigh, why it has refreshed and deleted everything?

Let's check the Giant Octopus against a typical CR 8 monster

Typical values:
hp 100 AC 21 primary attack +15 secondary attack +11 average damage (for a creature with high damage) 35 Primary ability DC 19 Secondary 12 high save +11, low save +7

Giant octopus - CR 8:
hp 90 AC 18 bite 13 tentacles attack 11 average damage , 81,5 Poison DC 17 fort +11 Ref +12, Will +7

HP CR 7 AC CR 5 To hit, CR 8 Damage CR 17 Saves CR 8

Now the same but with only 1 constrict attack:

Giant octopus CR 8:
hp 90 AC 18 bite 13 tentacles attack 11 average damage , 50 Poison DC 17fort +11 Ref +12, Will +7

HP CR 7 AC CR 5 To hit, CR 8 Damage CR 11 Saves CR 8

The potential damage of a giant octopus that constrict with each attack is that of a CR 17 monster, constricting only once it is that of a CR 11 monster.

Ever assuming that its attack bonus will keep the damage down when it meet higher CR characters the damage is out of scale for a creature of its CR.

I can't really follow your math, but It does not look like you took CMB or attack bonus into account. That is not how you do simulations.

Diego wasn't doing simulations. Diego was comparing the stats of a giant octopus to what the stats of a CR 8 creature should be based on the baselines provided by Paizo.

Also, I would strongly caution your last line of criticism when you lead off with a statement that you don't understand what he's doing. Diego's analysis was much more useful and compelling that what you had provided.


Quote:
AC: 12 armor + 2 dex + 2 deflection + 1 natural + 2 armor training = 29

Youar AC is 2 points higher than it should be. Unless we are considering he took armor specialization from armor masters handbook.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:

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

I know this is a legal tactic. And perhaps this doesn't belong in the rules forum, but I can't help but wondering if it's intended for gms to have monsters use this tactic? Any thoughts on this?

Natural attacks are not iterative. Once the limb has been used once, it's done for the turn, so you can get a constrict and grab and at thee end of that it's either hold on for next turn or use a free action tor release, but after that, it's done.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:

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

I know this is a legal tactic. And perhaps this doesn't belong in the rules forum, but I can't help but wondering if it's intended for gms to have monsters use this tactic? Any thoughts on this?

Natural attacks are not iterative. Once the limb has been used once, it's done for the turn, so you can get a constrict and grab and at thee end of that it's either hold on for next turn or use a free action tor release, but after that, it's done.

But a lot of monster have more than one limb. This tactic isn't a problem if used by a monster with one or even two grabbing limbs, but it start to be a problem with creatures with a lot of limbs and constrict.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Knight Magenta wrote:


I can't really follow your math, but It does not look like you took CMB or attack bonus into account. That is not how you do simulations.

It isn't a simulation, it is a comparison to the stats of a typical CR 8 monster presented in the Monster Creation section of the rules.

here is the part about calculating damage:

PRD wrote:

Average Damage: This is the average amount of damage dealt by a creature of this CR if all of its attacks are successful. To determine a creature's average damage, add the average value for all of the damage dice rolled (as determined by Table: Average Die Results) to the damage modifier for each attack.

A creature that relies on melee or ranged weapons in combat should have average damage within the range of high and low damage.

A creature with higher than normal attack bonuses will often deal lower damage, while a creature with lower than normal attack bonuses will often deal higher damage.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:

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

I know this is a legal tactic. And perhaps this doesn't belong in the rules forum, but I can't help but wondering if it's intended for gms to have monsters use this tactic? Any thoughts on this?

Natural attacks are not iterative. Once the limb has been used once, it's done for the turn, so you can get a constrict and grab and at thee end of that it's either hold on for next turn or use a free action tor release, but after that, it's done.
But a lot of monster have more than one limb. This tactic isn't a problem if used by a monster with one or even two grabbing limbs, but it start to be a problem with creatures with a lot of limbs and constrict.

IF a monster is going to pull that trick, I believe that it suffers a -20 penalty to it's CMB because it's not going all out on the grapple.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:

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

I know this is a legal tactic. And perhaps this doesn't belong in the rules forum, but I can't help but wondering if it's intended for gms to have monsters use this tactic? Any thoughts on this?

Natural attacks are not iterative. Once the limb has been used once, it's done for the turn, so you can get a constrict and grab and at thee end of that it's either hold on for next turn or use a free action tor release, but after that, it's done.
But a lot of monster have more than one limb. This tactic isn't a problem if used by a monster with one or even two grabbing limbs, but it start to be a problem with creatures with a lot of limbs and constrict.
IF a monster is going to pull that trick, I believe that it suffers a -20 penalty to it's CMB because it's not going all out on the grapple.

That applies only if the monster want to have its target grappled while not counting as grappled. If it grab and release it count as grappled as long as it maintain its grapple.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:

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

I know this is a legal tactic. And perhaps this doesn't belong in the rules forum, but I can't help but wondering if it's intended for gms to have monsters use this tactic? Any thoughts on this?

Natural attacks are not iterative. Once the limb has been used once, it's done for the turn, so you can get a constrict and grab and at thee end of that it's either hold on for next turn or use a free action tor release, but after that, it's done.
But a lot of monster have more than one limb. This tactic isn't a problem if used by a monster with one or even two grabbing limbs, but it start to be a problem with creatures with a lot of limbs and constrict.
IF a monster is going to pull that trick, I believe that it suffers a -20 penalty to it's CMB because it's not going all out on the grapple.

That applies only if the monster want to have its target grappled while not counting as grappled. If it grab and release it count as grappled as long as it maintain its grapple.

As I see it, the best option with multi limbed creatures it to consider each attack as coming from a different creature and to use this rule:

PRD wrote:
Multiple Creatures: Multiple creatures can attempt to grapple one target. The creature that first initiates the grapple is the only one that makes a check, with a +2 bonus for each creature that assists in the grapple (using the Aid Another action). Multiple creatures can also assist another creature in breaking free from a grapple, with each creature that assists (using the Aid Another action) granting a +2 bonus on the grappled creature's combat maneuver check.

so that each successful attack, after the first, with a limb with the grab ability against the same target give a +2 to the CMB of the grabbing creature, instead of another grappling check, but that isn't RAW.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Knight Magenta wrote:


I can't really follow your math, but It does not look like you took CMB or attack bonus into account. That is not how you do simulations.

It isn't a simulation, it is a comparison to the stats of a typical CR 8 monster presented in the Monster Creation section of the rules.

here is the part about calculating damage:

PRD wrote:

Average Damage: This is the average amount of damage dealt by a creature of this CR if all of its attacks are successful. To determine a creature's average damage, add the average value for all of the damage dice rolled (as determined by Table: Average Die Results) to the damage modifier for each attack.

A creature that relies on melee or ranged weapons in combat should have average damage within the range of high and low damage.

A creature with higher than normal attack bonuses will often deal lower damage, while a creature with lower than normal attack bonuses will often deal higher damage.

I see... The Octopus is balanced by its low to-hit modifier though. You've ignored the bolded section where the octopus has only a CR 5 worth of to hit. To determine the value of these CRs is what DPR calculations are for. Espcially since to get the constrict, the octopus needs to hit twice; (once with the tentacle and once with CMB).

And before you say "well CR 17 is far too high, no matter your to hit values." Consider that CR 8 is when the Medusa shows up. That's a creature that instantly kills creatures with a gaze attack. So at CR 8 being instantly killed if a particular defense is not up to snuff is expected.

MeanMutton wrote:

Diego wasn't doing simulations. Diego was comparing the stats of a giant octopus to what the stats of a CR 8 creature should be based on the baselines provided by Paizo.

Also, I would strongly caution your last line of criticism when you lead off with a statement that you don't understand what he's doing. Diego's analysis was much more useful and compelling that what you had provided.

I thought that that was what it was, but the calculation Diego was doing was unclear. When you are doing a non-standard proof, you need to show your work if you want to be convincing.

I'm not sure how the guideline analysis is more useful then a live example since it is highly removed from actual play and Diego was only looking at one part of it. You can't evaluate a creature's combat ability by just looking at the maximum damage. We are after all looking at only a single creature, which destroys a lot of the guidelines generic power.

My challenge to Diego was to find even a single non-trivial example of constrict on grapple being broken. Then we could try to figure out if it was the specific monster or the grapple rules that needed fixing.

shadowkras wrote:
Youar AC is 2 points higher than it should be. Unless we are considering he took armor specialization from armor masters handbook.

Whoops! I don't play fighters much, thought the armor training applied. Cutting off the 2 AC gives the octopus 13 DPR from tentacles and 6.8 from constrict. This means it takes it 3.5 rounds to constrict the fighter to death and 5.5 rounds using only tentacles. The 3.5 rounds to kill seems to me about what I expect from a CR 8 melee brute. Maybe a shade too low, but that is balanced with the poison and the ability to potentially grab multiple targets.

Thanks for pointing this out shadowkras!

Backing this up, I've seen it mentioned on the boards that AC 20+level is expected for a front-line character. So this all checks out!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Suggested Change:
"At the end of your turn, if you are grappling an opponent, deal the listed Constrict damage to that opponent."

No more release-grapple-constrict shenanigans. Reason to hold on restored.


Purplefixer wrote:

Suggested Change:

"At the end of your turn, if you are grappling an opponent, deal the listed Constrict damage to that opponent."

No more release-grapple-constrict shenanigans. Reason to hold on restored.

Then the constrictor will simply full attack and only attempt the grab at the last attack... Then release at the start of the next turn and repeat.

The problem is that there's really no reason to grapple most of the time... Unless you have Rapid Grappler, grappling is actually worse for the attacker than it's for the target.

Sovereign Court

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

It is not backed up by the rules or common sense, if you've ever seen a cat toy with a mouse.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

I still think the -20 to grapple clause is there to prevent or heavily penalize multiple grabs per round. As McBitey already quoted upthread:

"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."

That's pretty clear there: a creature with grab gets to make a free grapple check yes, but it's at -20 to the check if it intends to do anything else than use its whole body to perform the grapple (i.e. -20 if it does anything else than making and maintaining a grapple; i.e. -20 if it plans to keep using other limbs on other creatures, be it for regular attacks or to grapple multiple creatures with multiple limbs...)

The only time the -20 does NOT apply in my game is when the creature attacks, grabs successfully, and stop the full attack routine to fully sit on its new, single prey. On its next round, all it does is maintain the grapple and apply damage once (plus constrict, if applicable).


Purple Dragon Knight 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?
It is not backed up by the rules or common sense, if you've ever seen a cat toy with a mouse.

1) Cats don't have constrict.

2) A cat's catch and release is modeled by not maintaining the grapple on its turn rather than releasing its prey multiple times in a single round.
3) Big cats do not do the catch and release that house cats do. As such I would take the behavior of wild animals as more typical od wild animals than I would the behavior of domesticated ones.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Knight Magenta wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Knight Magenta wrote:


I can't really follow your math, but It does not look like you took CMB or attack bonus into account. That is not how you do simulations.

It isn't a simulation, it is a comparison to the stats of a typical CR 8 monster presented in the Monster Creation section of the rules.

here is the part about calculating damage:

PRD wrote:

Average Damage: This is the average amount of damage dealt by a creature of this CR if all of its attacks are successful. To determine a creature's average damage, add the average value for all of the damage dice rolled (as determined by Table: Average Die Results) to the damage modifier for each attack.

A creature that relies on melee or ranged weapons in combat should have average damage within the range of high and low damage.

A creature with higher than normal attack bonuses will often deal lower damage, while a creature with lower than normal attack bonuses will often deal higher damage.

I see... The Octopus is balanced by its low to-hit modifier though. You've ignored the bolded section where the octopus has only a CR 5 worth of to hit. To determine the value of these CRs is what DPR calculations are for. Espcially since to get the constrict, the octopus needs to hit twice; (once with the tentacle and once with CMB).

And before you say "well CR 17 is far too high, no matter your to hit values." Consider that CR 8 is when the Medusa shows up. That's a creature that instantly kills creatures with a gaze attack. So at CR 8 being instantly killed if a particular defense is not up to snuff is expected.

MeanMutton wrote:

Diego wasn't doing simulations. Diego was comparing the stats of a giant octopus to what the stats of a CR 8 creature should be based on the baselines provided by Paizo.

Also, I would strongly caution your last line of criticism when you lead off with a statement that you don't understand what he's doing. Diego's analysis was much more useful and

...

No, you don't see. You failed again at reading the stats.

The Giant Octopus has the to hit of a CR 8 creature. It has the Ac of a CR 5 creature.

The part you bolded say exactly the opposite of what you are trying have it say.
Normally a creature with a high damage has a to hit that is lower than its CR. The octopus bite has a to hit of +13 and the primary to hit of a CR 8 creature is +15, the secondary to hit of a CR 8 creature is +11 and the 8 tentacles of the octopus have a to hit of +11.
That is well within the parameters of a CR 8 creature with a high damage for CR 8. A giant octopus limited to a single constrict each round has the damage output of a CR 11 creature, and that seem the appropriate damage output for a creature with the secondary to hit of a CR 8 creature.
If we give it the damage output of a CR 17 creature, the to hit should be way lower to compensate.

About my comparison (not a calculation), it is unclear to you because you have skimmed it, as is clearly demonstrated by you reading the wrong to hit comparison.

Knight Magenta wrote:


My challenge to Diego was to find even a single non-trivial example of constrict on grapple being broken. Then we could try to figure out if it was the specific monster or the grapple rules that needed fixing.

Not true.

Knight Magenta wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

...

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?

You "challenge" wasn't "about constrict on grapple being broken", it was about the CR of creatures if they can constrict several times in a round.

You where replying to "If we keep the RAW answer the CR of a few creatures should be bumped by 1-2 point as potential damage increase greatly." I showed very clearly that some CR is too low if we the monsters can apply constrict several times in a round.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

I still think the -20 to grapple clause is there to prevent or heavily penalize multiple grabs per round. As McBitey already quoted upthread:

"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."

That's pretty clear there: a creature with grab gets to make a free grapple check yes, but it's at -20 to the check if it intends to do anything else than use its whole body to perform the grapple (i.e. -20 if it does anything else than making and maintaining a grapple; i.e. -20 if it plans to keep using other limbs on other creatures, be it for regular attacks or to grapple multiple creatures with multiple limbs...)

The only time the -20 does NOT apply in my game is when the creature attacks, grabs successfully, and stop the full attack routine to fully sit on its new, single prey. On its next round, all it does is maintain the grapple and apply damage once (plus constrict, if applicable).

So you would apply a -20 to a tiger or lion using pounce and their grab ability?

Or to the same lion or tiger maintaining a grapple and raking?


This sequence can only be used by something attacking with iterative attacks, not natural attacks -- because natural attacks that can grapple can only be used once per round anyway.

Creatures with multiple natural attacks w/ grab can already use constrict multiple times a round without having to release their prey.

Not seeing the issue here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Has anyone ever interpreted it as "make all of your natural attacks, and if any (appropriate attacks) are successful, you may then attempt a 'single grab' at the end of your attack routine?"

I'm sure that's not the case, but I think it'd be nice if it were.


Quintain wrote:

This sequence can only be used by something attacking with iterative attacks, not natural attacks -- because natural attacks that can grapple can only be used once per round anyway.

Creatures with multiple natural attacks w/ grab can already use constrict multiple times a round without having to release their prey.

Not seeing the issue here.

Not true. Once something is grappled it cannot gain the grappled condition again until that condition is removed. Thus once you have grabbed something you cannot grab it again so long as you have it grappled.


thorin001 wrote:
Quintain wrote:

This sequence can only be used by something attacking with iterative attacks, not natural attacks -- because natural attacks that can grapple can only be used once per round anyway.

Creatures with multiple natural attacks w/ grab can already use constrict multiple times a round without having to release their prey.

Not seeing the issue here.

Not true. Once something is grappled it cannot gain the grappled condition again until that condition is removed. Thus once you have grabbed something you cannot grab it again so long as you have it grappled.

You can be grappled by multiple creatures, and if one grapples you, you get the grappled condition, and you get the grappled condition again if another grapples you while you are already being grappled.

The conditions don't stack, but you'll still need to escape both grapples before you are free.

So, you can get the grappled condition from multiple sources.

You can even grapple someone else while being grappled, which would give you the grappled condition twice.


Quintain wrote:


You can be grappled by multiple creatures, and if one grapples you, you get the grappled condition, and you get the grappled condition again if another grapples you while you are already being grappled.

The conditions don't stack, but you'll still need to escape both grapples before you are free.

So, you can get the grappled condition from multiple sources.

You can even grapple someone else while being grappled, which would give you the grappled condition twice.

When this happens to me I just pray they don't have the Hug it Out feat.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

So according to you, thorin001, one cannot grapple a victim of a black tentacles spell?

I'll have to remember that for the next time my party faces off against a high DPR monster utilizing constrict-and-release tactics with multiple natural weapons.

"Don't worry everyone! My big, black, slimy tentacles are not nearly as bad as..."

*points at monster*

"...all that!"

;P

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Quintain wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Quintain wrote:

This sequence can only be used by something attacking with iterative attacks, not natural attacks -- because natural attacks that can grapple can only be used once per round anyway.

Creatures with multiple natural attacks w/ grab can already use constrict multiple times a round without having to release their prey.

Not seeing the issue here.

Not true. Once something is grappled it cannot gain the grappled condition again until that condition is removed. Thus once you have grabbed something you cannot grab it again so long as you have it grappled.

You can be grappled by multiple creatures, and if one grapples you, you get the grappled condition, and you get the grappled condition again if another grapples you while you are already being grappled.

The conditions don't stack, but you'll still need to escape both grapples before you are free.

So, you can get the grappled condition from multiple sources.

You can even grapple someone else while being grappled, which would give you the grappled condition twice.

No.

ORD[ wrote:
Multiple Creatures: Multiple creatures can attempt to grapple one target. The creature that first initiates the grapple is the only one that makes a check, with a +2 bonus for each creature that assists in the grapple (using the Aid Another action). Multiple creatures can also assist another creature in breaking free from a grapple, with each creature that assists (using the Aid Another action) granting a +2 bonus on the grappled creature's combat maneuver check.

You are grappled once. The other guys grappling give a bonus to the grappling check, but nothing more.


Diego Rossi wrote:

ORD[ wrote:
Multiple Creatures: Multiple creatures can attempt to grapple one target. The creature that first initiates the grapple is the only one that makes a check, with a +2 bonus for each creature that assists in the grapple (using the Aid Another action). Multiple creatures can also assist another creature in breaking free from a grapple, with each creature that assists (using the Aid Another action) granting a +2 bonus on the grappled creature's combat maneuver check.

You are grappled once. The other guys grappling give a bonus to the grappling check, but nothing more.

(using the Aid Another action)

There are two conditions that need to be met for you to grapple.

A) The creature must be within range.
B) You must have the creature adjacent to you, or an empty space adjacent to you.

That is it.

The grapple condition does not prevent grappling attempts.

So, to make this easy.

Multiple people in a grapple

Multiple creatures can attempt to grapple one target. The creature that first initiates the grapple is the only one that makes a check, with a +2 bonus for each creature that assists in the grapple (using the Aid Another action). Multiple creatures can also assist another creature in breaking free from a grapple, with each creature that assists (using the Aid Another action) granting a +2 bonus on the grappled creature's combat maneuver check.

Multiple people stab you with swords

Multiple Creatures

Multiple creatures can attempt to stab one target with a sword. The creature that first initiates the sword-stabbing-fiesta is the only one that makes a check, with a +2 bonus for each creature that assists in the sword-stabs(using the Aid Another action). Multiple creatures can also assist another creature in breaking free from a sword-stab-mayhem, with each creature that assists (using the Aid Another action) granting a +2 bonus on the stabbed creature's AC.

Adding an option doesn't remove your other options.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Quintain wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Quintain wrote:

This sequence can only be used by something attacking with iterative attacks, not natural attacks -- because natural attacks that can grapple can only be used once per round anyway.

Creatures with multiple natural attacks w/ grab can already use constrict multiple times a round without having to release their prey.

Not seeing the issue here.

Not true. Once something is grappled it cannot gain the grappled condition again until that condition is removed. Thus once you have grabbed something you cannot grab it again so long as you have it grappled.

You can be grappled by multiple creatures, and if one grapples you, you get the grappled condition, and you get the grappled condition again if another grapples you while you are already being grappled.

The conditions don't stack, but you'll still need to escape both grapples before you are free.

So, you can get the grappled condition from multiple sources.

You can even grapple someone else while being grappled, which would give you the grappled condition twice.

No.

ORD[ wrote:
Multiple Creatures: Multiple creatures can attempt to grapple one target. The creature that first initiates the grapple is the only one that makes a check, with a +2 bonus for each creature that assists in the grapple (using the Aid Another action). Multiple creatures can also assist another creature in breaking free from a grapple, with each creature that assists (using the Aid Another action) granting a +2 bonus on the grappled creature's combat maneuver check.

You are grappled once. The other guys grappling give a bonus to the grappling check, but nothing more.

You get the grappled condition under two circumstances -- when someone grapples you and when you grapple someone else. They can both happen at the same time and by different circumstances.

If the chain hugging circumstance occurs, I don't see where you get around the fact that you have the grappled condition twice -- once when you grapple someone else, and when another grapples you.

(I'll stand corrected on the multiple persons grappling you adding more than one condition, though).

So, then does a single creature with multiple limbs only get to apply constriction damage on the first, since by the "multiple persons assisting in grappling rule" all the additional limbs should do is apply a +2 modifier for the escape check for each additional limb?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Quintain wrote:


So, then does a single creature with multiple limbs only get to apply constriction damage on the first, since by the "multiple persons assisting in grappling rule" all the additional limbs should do is apply a +2 modifier for the escape check for each additional limb?

I suggested that as an houserule a few post ago, but currently a creature with multiple limbs with the gab ability can attack with limb 1, try to grab, if successful apply constrict damage and then use a free action to release the target, then repeat with the others limbs.

The only limit is a GM saying "too many free actions".


I always interpreted constrict as a rider that could occur on essentially any attack, and it never occurred to me to think otherwise. I'm not even sure where the "and release" comes in, the grab quality makes it legal to make the grapple check on each hit, even if further success is meaningless. Natural attacks with grab don't have any "hands" limitation, only a per-limb limitation.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
RJGrady wrote:
I always interpreted constrict as a rider that could occur on essentially any attack, and it never occurred to me to think otherwise. I'm not even sure where the "and release" comes in, the grab quality makes it legal to make the grapple check on each hit, even if further success is meaningless. Natural attacks with grab don't have any "hands" limitation, only a per-limb limitation.

The rule cited above essentially say that you can't have multiple grapples on the same opponent. Every further attempt to grapple become an "aid another" action, so it don't activate constrict.

Sure, it is implied, not explicit, so you can see differently and your interpretation would be perfectly valid. YMMV

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
thorin001 wrote:


3) Big cats do not do the catch and release that house cats do. As such I would take the behavior of wild animals as more typical od wild animals than I would the behavior of domesticated ones.

Maybe house cats have an Int 3, which is enough to gain the evil alignment... :)


Diego Rossi wrote:
Quintain wrote:


So, then does a single creature with multiple limbs only get to apply constriction damage on the first, since by the "multiple persons assisting in grappling rule" all the additional limbs should do is apply a +2 modifier for the escape check for each additional limb?

I suggested that as an houserule a few post ago, but currently a creature with multiple limbs with the gab ability can attack with limb 1, try to grab, if successful apply constrict damage and then use a free action to release the target, then repeat with the others limbs.

The only limit is a GM saying "too many free actions".

Well, with the grab ability being a rider on attacks, you don't even need to release in order to perform a grab with another limb, unless there is some rule that says you can't perform a grab while grappled (which I have yet to see).

And once you have that second grapple in place, your target is pinned.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:

So you would apply a -20 to a tiger or lion using pounce and their grab ability?

Or to the same lion or tiger maintaining a grapple and raking?

this question has a lot of moving parts, but here it goes:

PRD: "a monster with the rake ability gains two free claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe"
and
"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."
and
"When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability)."
and
"Although both creatures have the grappled condition, you can, as the creature that initiated the grapple, release the grapple as a free action, removing the condition from both you and the target. If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold. If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds. Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple)."

1. Lion pounce scenario 1: if the lion pounces and makes a grab attack on its first attack, he takes -20 to establish the grapple while avoiding the grappled condition. If successful, he does not gain the grappled condition and he can complete his full attack routine at no penalty. However he cannot use rake attacks since he has initiated grapple in the same round (see above).

2. Lion pounce scenario 2: if the lion pounces and makes a grab attack on his last attack, he may or may not take -20 to establish the grapple. If he does take -20 and he's successful, he starts his next round without the grappled condition, and he'll take -20 to maintain that grapple as well. If he does not take -20, he starts next round with the grappled condition. In both cases, I'd say the lion is eligible for rake attacks in round 2 (without or with the -2 penalty, depending if he took the -20 grapple penalty or not).

The following:

"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."

...leads to an interesting question though:

Q: Since it's a standard action to maintain the grapple, would raking effectively means a lion is thus electing not to maintain the grapple i.e. he's performing a full attack with or without the -2 penalty, sure, but the rules say that "If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold." Therefore, making a full attack on a foe you've grappled would thus result in a release of the target.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

addendum (to address the question at hand! lol!):

3. If the lion releases the target as a free action after the grab, the lion can't rake the next round because he's not considered grappled when he starts his next turn. Effectively this lion just rakes in the first round when it pounces.

...but yeah... if you add constrict to the mix, the grab+constrict+freeactionrelease could be:

interpretation A: done as many times as the creature has attacks with the grab+constrict rider; or

interpretation B: done only once or multiple times if the creature takes the -20 CMB check on the grab.

I choose interpretation B due to literal reading of "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."

To me, it's no wonder this -20 to CMB clause is built into the Grab (Ex) ability. It's meant to be applied everytime you do stuff with other limbs, and should not be ignored because the basic grapple rules allow for the grappler to release a target as a free action.

Let's also remember that without the grappled condition, a creature that took the -20 is free to move as it pleases, with the victim in its jaws.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

So you would apply a -20 to a tiger or lion using pounce and their grab ability?

Or to the same lion or tiger maintaining a grapple and raking?

this question has a lot of moving parts, but here it goes:

PRD: "a monster with the rake ability gains two free claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe"
and
"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."
and
"When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability)."
and
"Although both creatures have the grappled condition, you can, as the creature that initiated the grapple, release the grapple as a free action, removing the condition from both you and the target. If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold. If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds. Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple)."

1. Lion pounce scenario 1: if the lion pounces and makes a grab attack on its first attack, he takes -20 to establish the grapple while avoiding the grappled condition. If successful, he does not gain the grappled condition and he can complete his full attack routine at no penalty. However he cannot use rake attacks since he has initiated grapple in the same round (see above).

2. Lion pounce scenario 2: if the lion pounces and makes a grab attack on his last attack, he may or may not take -20 to establish the grapple. If he does take -20 and he's successful, he starts his next round without the grappled condition, and he'll take -20 to maintain that grapple as well....

1) Pounce override the rake limitation;

2) Lion attack sequence: rake, rake, claw, claw, then bite and grab.
No -20 to the grapple check, full attack.

Essentially: you are applying the -20 the wrong way and your idea on how it work can be easily circumvented.

A grapple don't stop your full attack or your other actions.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

You've described my "Lion pounce scenario 2" yes. I'm not disagreeing that you can do the bite attack last. However, even if the bite attack is last, the lion can still elect to take the -20 and not gain the grappled condition.

This way he can on the next round run off with the gazelle in its mouth. Or rake her to bits next round without any attack penalty.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

You've described my "Lion pounce scenario 2" yes. I'm not disagreeing that you can do the bite attack last. However, even if the bite attack is last, the lion can still elect to take the -20 and not gain the grappled condition.

This way he can on the next round run off with the gazelle in its mouth. Or rake her to bits next round without any attack penalty.

The attack penalty is balanced by de dexterity penalty for the grapple, unless you are using dexterity as you attack stat.

Where you get the impression that grappling someone stop a full attack?
Or that pounce don't override completely the limitation of rake?

The relevant text from grab:

PRD wrote:


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.

The only difference between a normal attack and taking the -20 is that you don't get the grappled condition.

What do the grappled condition?

PRD wrote:

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.

Do you see something that say "it stop a full attack"?


By the Slashing Grace FAQ, the bit "grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform" can easily be interpreted to preclude multi-natural weapon attacks. The FAQ includes attacking with multiple natural weapons as an action that "occupies multiple hands." I have always interpreted it that way, but its nice to have a FAQ that actually backs that interpretation up.


thorin001 wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight 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?
It is not backed up by the rules or common sense, if you've ever seen a cat toy with a mouse.

1) Cats don't have constrict.

2) A cat's catch and release is modeled by not maintaining the grapple on its turn rather than releasing its prey multiple times in a single round.
3) Big cats do not do the catch and release that house cats do. As such I would take the behavior of wild animals as more typical od wild animals than I would the behavior of domesticated ones.

House cats don't depend on the successful capture of prey to stay alive, they're fed by their owners, and their instincts aren't the same as cats on the street. Feral cats that are living day by day on the street, don't play with their food, especially not with the chance of losing it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Calth wrote:
By the Slashing Grace FAQ, the bit "grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform" can easily be interpreted to preclude multi-natural weapon attacks. The FAQ includes attacking with multiple natural weapons as an action that "occupies multiple hands." I have always interpreted it that way, but its nice to have a FAQ that actually backs that interpretation up.

?

Grappling/being grappled don't preclude the use of multiple hand, it preclude the use of:
- the limb that is grappling for something that is different from grappling (and constricting) if you are the grappler;
- the use of "action that requires two hands to perform". That don't mean "the use of 2 (or more) limbs" but the use of two handed weapons and actions that require to use 2 limbs at the same time.

FAQ wrote:

Grapple: There are some contradictions between the various rules on grappling. What is correct?

To sum up the correct rules:

1) Grappling does not deny you your Dex bonus to AC, whether you are the grappler or the target.

2) A grappled creature can still make a full attack.

3) Being pinned does not make you flat-footed, but you are denied your Dex bonus.

Update: Page 195—In Table 8–6: Armor Class Modifiers, in the entry for Grappling, delete the superscript “1” after the +0 in the Melee and Ranged columns. In the third footnote, change “flat-footed and cannot add his Dexterity bonus” to “denied its Dexterity bonus”

Update: Page 201—In the If You Are Grappled section, in the fourth sentence, change “any action that requires only one hand to perform” to “any action that doesn’t require two hands to perform.” In the fourth sentence, change “make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon” to “make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon”

Update: Page 568—In the Pinned condition, in the second sentence, change “flat-footed” to “denied its Dexterity bonus.”


Ravingdork wrote:

Has anyone ever interpreted it as "make all of your natural attacks, and if any (appropriate attacks) are successful, you may then attempt a 'single grab' at the end of your attack routine?"

I'm sure that's not the case, but I think it'd be nice if it were.

Nope. Each attack allows a grapple attempt. The rules basically say "upon a successful attack", not "at the end of your attack routine".

Quote:
Grab (Ex) If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack....it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action


Diego Rossi wrote:
Calth wrote:
By the Slashing Grace FAQ, the bit "grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform" can easily be interpreted to preclude multi-natural weapon attacks. The FAQ includes attacking with multiple natural weapons as an action that "occupies multiple hands." I have always interpreted it that way, but its nice to have a FAQ that actually backs that interpretation up.

?

Grappling/being grappled don't preclude the use of multiple hand, it preclude the use of:
- the limb that is grappling for something that is different from grappling (and constricting) if you are the grappler;
- the use of "action that requires two hands to perform". That don't mean "the use of 2 (or more) limbs" but the use of two handed weapons and actions that require to use 2 limbs at the same time.

And by the Slashing Grace FAQ, full-attacking with multiple natural weapons qualifies as an action that requires the use of two limbs at the same time.

The FAQ you bolded is irrelevant, as it refers to full-attacking with a single light or one-handed weapon, which only takes one-hand. In other words a full-attack does not necessarily require two hands, but the full-attacks listed in the slashing grace FAQ do.


The slashing grace FAQ says you can't use natural weapons alongside your regular weapon for slashing grace, period.

Trying to divine any additional meaning from it is sketchy at best.


swoosh wrote:

The slashing grace FAQ says you can't use natural weapons alongside your regular weapon for slashing grace, period.

Trying to divine any additional meaning from it is sketchy at best.

To be precise, it says that you cant use additional natural weapons as they qualify as an action that occupies multiple hands, as that is the restriction if fails for Slashing Grace.

Is it 100% concrete? No, by no means. But it fits generally with the way the action economy has been ruled by the design team. I mean, I considered multi natural weapon attacks to fall under the no two handed action restriction for years before that FAQ, as the team has consistently ruled that any attacks the require multiple limbs/weapons/spells count as "two action economy hand" actions. The FAQ is just more confirmation to me of design intent. Ruling it this way is both consistent with every other ruling and the balanced outcome, so I'm fairly confident that this is how any FAQ will turn out.

151 to 200 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.