Both under normal and unchained rules, grappling puts the attacker in a bad spot. Let's have two bears. The one who starts the grapple can do a standard action abd a grapple check (at +5) to hit once with a natural attack. Meanwhile, the grappled bear can do a full attack with 2 claws and a bite.
Doesn't it feel strange?
I know there are other adventages (such as vs casters), but it sounds strange that the creature with the upper hand in the grapple is actually at disadventage
Wouldn't the benefit be that the first bear can use that grapple check to pin the other one, rendering it completely helpless?
No doubt covered before, Grappling, like straight up combat snaps in two at a certain point. Many grapple opponents combine large+ size, reach, boosted strength plus feats and abilities that let them grapple more or less at will. I recall several ooze creatures in adventures that could wrap a party up very quickly(Skull and shackles I believe had one) in fact, if the fighter got tagged, their best bet was to just stay grabbed and keep whacking instead of trying to escape because if you use a standard to escape and end up right next to something that has 20+ grapple and 10'+ reach you are right back where you started when it acts next.
Saying I haven't read what you posted is pointless, as if it were true then I wouldn't read the followup either. I read it.
well, you are asking what I want to get with this thread, and I have stated it several times
I disagree. I think grappling should be more dangerous for the one who initiates the grapple unless they're already in a superior position.
unless you are highly trained, or q grappling animal/monster, grappke provokes. I think tgat's a good model
The knife example is just dumb. You're not facing someone with a knife. You're facing someone whose hands are knives. Or who has two knives. Or who can punch and kick. How do you lock them down? Grab both hands simultaneously? And their legs?
well, we have several examples in the pictures shown above, with Conan, Tarzan, Heracles, etc. All of them are fighting lions who have the equivalent of 4 knives, yet they are in positions where, although they aren't fully controlling the limbs of the animal, it's better for them than let the lion be free.
That is: the animal isn't pinned yet (CAN use the limbs, and CAN attack with them), but they don't attack so easy as if they were free. Like if they have -4 to attacks, for example, as the 3.5 rule. That is: attacking, while being held,is harder than attacking while being totally free to roam. Attacking, while being in the jaws of a T-Rex, is harder than attacking while being on his back.
Grapple is something animals use to hold down prey (and in general much stronger things use to control weaker things).
that's not true either in RL, or the fiction of the genre. We can go back to the examples of MMA fights, bears fighting each other, or tarzan vs the lion.
It isn't really used in a fight unless you're desperate or have specialized training. The only reason clinching exists in boxing is because several devastating punches that are super easy in that position are illegal. Otherwise clinching would be a suicide tactic.
Boxers don't have free hands to grapple (they have gloves). MMA do, and grappling is way more useful there, ask Ronda Rousey for example. Actually, the Gracie family show, a lot of years ago, how useful it was to grapple boxers.
In any case, those are expert grapplers, people with a lot of feats and monk levels and whatever, and the problem in the game is not that.The problem in the game is that creatures that have grab, and should be good at it, aren't, because the game requires a big bunch of specialization, plus constrict, for grapple being useful. Because grapple, by default, is a harder condition for the one who is winning, which makes zero sense.
}And "specialized training" is what all the feats, archetypes, and all of that other stuff is supposed to represent. By 6th level any grappler can go from standing next to someone to pinning them. It's in the freaking core rulebook.
problem is: bears, who have grab abd should be bearhugging things, suck at it.
Untrained fighter grappling things and overruling the battlefield is a problem that doesn't really exists, and will never do, as grappling provokes AOO. Your fear that grappling becomes the go-to tactic for untrained chars is unfounded. Your regular ironclad knight is not going to grapple a trex or a bear, as they provoke when they try. The game already works well to show the perils of trying to grapple someone when you aren´t trained. Making rules where the one winning the grapple isn´t in a worse possition than the one losing it, helps *the bear*. Who SHOULD be good at grappling, without levels in monk or using a magic belt that gives constrict, and SHOULD have an adventage over a creature they already have beaten in a grappling contest.
Wouldn't the benefit be that the first bear can use that grapple check to pin the other one, rendering it completely helpless?Both under normal and unchained rules, grappling puts the attacker in a bad spot. Let's have two bears. The one who starts the grapple can do a standard action abd a grapple check (at +5) to hit once with a natural attack. Meanwhile, the grappled bear can do a full attack with 2 claws and a bite.
Doesn't it feel strange?
I know there are other adventages (such as vs casters), but it sounds strange that the creature with the upper hand in the grapple is actually at disadventage
Pinning, by default, is useless unless you can:
1) tie up2) have another friend that beat up the pinned creature
3)have constrict.
A bear has none of those, so it's pointless for him to pin the other bear, and if he does, he can't do anything else than holding the pin, until he fails to do so. Holding the pin is a standard action, the bear can't constrict, and has no other way to damage the pinned bear.
I must have taken a different martial art than you did.
I was taught specifically NOT to grapple the arm of an opponent wielding a sharp weapon, but simply to avoid the attack, check the weapon (usually an open hand against his arm, not grabbing, just gaining control and keeping it away from danger), then counter attack, usually to disable the person (e.g. striking his temple nerve cluster) or disable his arm (e.g. a strike to his bicep nerve cluster) - but never with gappling (too easy to grab a little wrong and get cut, or he pulls his arm back and the arm, hand, and then knife slip right through your fingers, cutting you in the process, of course).
And this instruction came from my Jiu-Jitsu sensei.
But none of that is relevant to our abstract Pathfinder combat system.
I suppose it depends if you consider that things like this or this or this are considered a grapple under PF rules. I do. I don't thing you need to go prone and in MMA position to be in a grapple.
But I agree that is of little relevance to the abstract combat system of Paizo. My gripe with it is not that it doesn't model reality well. Reality is too complex to be modeled in a game system, except maybe complex models in computers, I suppose. My gripe is that it doesn't model fiction well, as fictional owlbears should grapple things with their grab ability, instead of releasing them free because being the grappler is more harmful than being the grappled one.
Pinning, by default, is useless unless you can:
1) tie up
2) have another friend that beat up the pinned creature
3)have constrict.
You don't need constrict, just Grab. "Each successful grapple check the creature makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold."
Pinning, by default, is useless unless you can:
1) tie up
2) have another friend that beat up the pinned creature
3)have constrict.You don't need constrict, just Grab. "Each successful grapple check the creature makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold."
Wow. Thanks for pointing out. That changes a lot, and makes a great part of this thread pointless. At the very least, it gives the bear a reason to grapple.
I do wish the grapple rules were more simple and allowed for more options.
Though, my GMs typically give me more options if I suggest it. For example, my GM allows me to use my grapple target as an improvised weapon against another foe.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do wish the grapple rules were more simple and allowed for more options.
Though, my GMs typically give me more options if I suggest it. For example, my GM allows me to use my grapple target as an improvised weapon against another foe.
Don't be taunting me with your free body bludgeon.
The biggest problem with grapple isn't that they're strong, weak, or any other adjective to do with balance.
It's that they're f*~@ing hard to make sense of.
In my games, we read RAW as, after you have pinned someone, if the enemy fails to escape, the when yu next maintain the pin with a grapple check, you can also do stuff like "damage the opponent" just as yu can normally in a grapple. This makes pinning very good. Enemy can't do anything but yu get to whack them once a round.
If that succeeds, then Yogi-bear did some damage to Boo-Boo-bear AND grappled him. Next turn, Boo-Boo-bear can full attack but he only gets ONE claw, not two, and one bite. So, in effect, Yogi-bear used a free Grab (no action) to prevent Boo-Boo-bear from making one attack next round.
Can you provide a source for this? I don't believe it's correct.
Wouldn't the benefit be that the first bear can use that grapple check to pin the other one, rendering it completely helpless?Both under normal and unchained rules, grappling puts the attacker in a bad spot. Let's have two bears. The one who starts the grapple can do a standard action abd a grapple check (at +5) to hit once with a natural attack. Meanwhile, the grappled bear can do a full attack with 2 claws and a bite.
Doesn't it feel strange?
I know there are other adventages (such as vs casters), but it sounds strange that the creature with the upper hand in the grapple is actually at disadventage
Pinning, by default, is useless unless you can:
1) tie up
2) have another friend that beat up the pinned creature
3)have constrict.A bear has none of those, so it's pointless for him to pin the other bear, and if he does, he can't do anything else than holding the pin, until he fails to do so. Holding the pin is a standard action, the bear can't constrict, and has no other way to damage the pinned bear.
Not quite right:
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).
The listed options are Move/Damage/Pin/Tie Up.
So the roll to maintain the pin allows you to use the Damage option as well. It might take a while to finish your pinned foe, but it's totally not "useless."(And you don't even need Grab or Constrict. Having those just gives you extra damage for every Grapple Check.)
Do people feel that the damage from Grab on subsequent grapple checks is supposed to be in addition to any damage that check would normally impose? In other words, would you expect that a lion which grabs you with a Bite would do Bite damage if it pins you? If it selects the Damage action do you think it would do Bite damage twice or perhaps that it could inflict Claw and Bite damage (using the Claw for the Damage action since the Bite is busy maintaining the grapple)
I'd be surprised if you're really supposed to get "double" damage when grappling with Grab, but I can see how people would read the RAW that way. It would certainly make my Feral Gnasher happy, but I think it is too much of a grey area.
If that succeeds, then Yogi-bear did some damage to Boo-Boo-bear AND grappled him. Next turn, Boo-Boo-bear can full attack but he only gets ONE claw, not two, and one bite. So, in effect, Yogi-bear used a free Grab (no action) to prevent Boo-Boo-bear from making one attack next round.Can you provide a source for this? I don't believe it's correct.
The source is:
While grappled, you can't perform any action that uses both hands.A full-attack action is an action.
Claws are basically a form of hands.
Therefore while grappled you can't make a full-attack that uses both claws.
This is, of course, open to other interpretations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do people feel that the damage from Grab on subsequent grapple checks is supposed to be in addition to any damage that check would normally impose? In other words, would you expect that a lion which grabs you with a Bite would do Bite damage if it pins you? If it selects the Damage action do you think it would do Bite damage twice or perhaps that it could inflict Claw and Bite damage (using the Claw for the Damage action since the Bite is busy maintaining the grapple)
I'd be surprised if you're really supposed to get "double" damage when grappling with Grab, but I can see how people would read the RAW that way. It would certainly make my Feral Gnasher happy, but I think it is too much of a grey area.
"Each successful grapple check the creature makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold."
It seems fairly clear - you roll to maintain grapple the turn after you grabbed them. If you succeed, you do some damage with your Grab ability - using the same natural weapon you grabbed them with. After that you can, in addition, do something else, e.g. moving, damaging or pinning your foe.It's possible that there is a secret RAI that does something completely different, but we have no evidence for that, and a house-rule on those lines threatens to make grappling 'wrong'.
'Double' damage is less than what the bear could get with a full attack.
Also note that Constrict damage is on top of that - you make a successful grab roll and then do immediate bonus damage.
If that succeeds, then Yogi-bear did some damage to Boo-Boo-bear AND grappled him. Next turn, Boo-Boo-bear can full attack but he only gets ONE claw, not two, and one bite. So, in effect, Yogi-bear used a free Grab (no action) to prevent Boo-Boo-bear from making one attack next round.Can you provide a source for this? I don't believe it's correct.The source is:
While grappled, you can't perform any action that uses both hands.
A full-attack action is an action.
Claws are basically a form of hands.
Therefore while grappled you can't make a full-attack that uses both claws.This is, of course, open to other interpretations.
Full Attack doesn't inherently use both "hands" though.
Claw attacks definitely don't use both "hands".I think the general idea behind this line of thinking is: "Well if you're holding onto one of it's claws then how is it clawing you with it?"
The flaw with that thinking is the assumption you are "holding one of it's claws" is a rather huge leap in logic. Headlocks. Leg Locks. Bear Hugs. There are tons of ways you could be grappling a foe that leave it's attack options totally open. Only during a Pin would you be truly limiting their attack potential by RAW.
Do people feel that the damage from Grab on subsequent grapple checks is supposed to be in addition to any damage that check would normally impose? In other words, would you expect that a lion which grabs you with a Bite would do Bite damage if it pins you? If it selects the Damage action do you think it would do Bite damage twice or perhaps that it could inflict Claw and Bite damage (using the Claw for the Damage action since the Bite is busy maintaining the grapple).
Simply put? Yes.
The rules that Matthew Downie just restated are pretty clearly written. When you succeed at a grapple check, you deal damage as if you hit with the attack that initiated the grapple. And since everything involved in a grapple requires succeeding on a grapple check, then everything will allow for getting that extra damage, including the "Damage" grapple option.
Claw attacks definitely don't use both "hands".
Making two claw attacks in one round requires the use of both hands, unless you have your claws on a different limb.
There are tons of ways you could be grappling a foe that leave it's attack options totally open.
But, in a rather abstract way, it is understood that you are holding on to one of the forelimbs of your foe. Hence, while grappled, you cannot take actions that require the use of both hands.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are tons of ways you could be grappling a foe that leave it's attack options totally open.But, in a rather abstract way, it is understood that you are holding on to one of the forelimbs of your foe. Hence, while grappled, you cannot take actions that require the use of both hands.
How can that assumption be true when not everything has forelimbs?
Well, that would be an exception. But creatures without forelimbs can't take actions that require two hands either.
Well, that would be an exception. But creatures without forelimbs can't take actions that require two hands either.
I think yours is a reasonable RAI interpretation of the rules, and one I could back up. But it's not RAW, and doesn't work in game every well.
One of the problems with the grappling rules (and some other rules, like climbing) are writen with real world mentality. They try to "work" for man vs man wrestling, with rules that mimic that sort of combat well. But we are talking about a world were a sentient ooze tries to grapple a winged horse. Technically the horse can attack the ooze with two hoofs, as hoofs aren't hands. But if the horse were a bear (far more dangerous animal in a grapple), then he could only use one claw? How so?
That said: I was totally wrong about the issue, as I wasn't giving free damage to creatures with grab. That makes it quite dangerous: 2xdamage in aa grapple, or damage+pin. And make cobstrict creatures totally monstruous. To the point that I wonder if that free grab damage is RAI. A python could do 2x damage in turn 1 (bite+cobstrict) and 3x damage in turn 2 (grab+cobstrict+damage grapple option). With the damage output a bite/cobstrict has, it's kind of really dangerous for his CR.
But we are talking about a world were a sentient ooze tries to grapple a winged horse. Technically the horse can attack the ooze with two hoofs, as hoofs aren't hands. But if the horse were a bear (far more dangerous animal in a grapple), then he could only use one claw? How so?
Ah, that's because the flying horse can attack with its rear hooves while using its wings to support itself, whereas a bear with one forepaw twisted behind its back is more heavily restricted than that. 100% realism!
It still annoys me that pretty much every creature with Grab is still better off grappling/releasing every round so that they can full attack.
So if you grapple an ooze, be careful, because it will attack you with both hands!
It still annoys me that pretty much every creature with Grab is still better off grappling/releasing every round so that they can full attack.
How so?
Scenario 1:
R1 - Move up to Attack+Grab foe so it can't escape, dealing two hits worth of damage (one from your attack and one from Grab+a successful grapple check). Foe can't escape, so it opts to Full Attack you. Before the round ends, you Free-action Release the grapple.
R2 - Full Attack the foe+Grab on the last attack (which, considering iterative/secondary penalties, may have a greater miss chance, depending on attack method) so foe (hopefully) can't escape again. Foe again decides to Full Attack if it can't escape, or possibly escape if you missed your Grab.
R3 - Repeat R2, etc.
Scenario 2:
R1 - Move up to Attack+Grab foe so it can't escape, dealing two hits worth of damage (one from your attack and one from Grab+a successful grapple check). Foe can't escape, so it opts to Full Attack you. You do not Free-action drop the grapple.
R2 - You roll to maintain the Grapple with a +5 bonus, dealing one hit's worth of damage from Grab ability, and apply the Pinned with your maintain roll. Foe gains the Pinned condition, and is in serious trouble, so Foe attempts to escape, but likely fails because you still get that +5 bonus for being in control, and you deal another hit's worth of Grab damage.
R3 - You roll to maintain the Grapple with a +5 bonus, dealing another hit's worth of damage from Grab and a) if you have rope, may tie the Foe up and make them truly Helpless and may escort them to jail/steal their things/go full-on murderhobo/etc, or b) choose the Damage option and deal Damage + Grab damage. Foe remains helpless and keeps futilely attempting escape, hoping the dice roll lucky, but more likely fail because you're still rolling at +5. Roll fails and Foe continues to sob on the ground and take your gut punches, claw attacks, or, ya know, whatever...
Scenario 2 seems far superior. :)
It still annoys me that pretty much every creature with Grab is still better off grappling/releasing every round so that they can full attack.
How so?
Scenario 1:
R1 - Move up to Attack+Grab foe so it can't escape, dealing two hits worth of damage (one from your attack and one from Grab+a successful grapple check). Foe can't escape, so it opts to Full Attack you. Before the round ends, you Free-action Release the grapple.
R2 - Full Attack the foe+Grab on the last attack (which, considering iterative/secondary penalties, may have a greater miss chance, depending on attack method) so foe (hopefully) can't escape again. Foe again decides to Full Attack if it can't escape, or possibly escape if you missed your Grab.
R3 - Repeat R2, etc.Scenario 2:
R1 - Move up to Attack+Grab foe so it can't escape, dealing two hits worth of damage (one from your attack and one from Grab+a successful grapple check). Foe can't escape, so it opts to Full Attack you. You do not Free-action drop the grapple.
R2 - You roll to maintain the Grapple with a +5 bonus, dealing one hit's worth of damage from Grab ability, and apply the Pinned with your maintain roll. Foe gains the Pinned condition, and is in serious trouble, so Foe attempts to escape, but likely fails because you still get that +5 bonus for being in control, and you deal another hit's worth of Grab damage.
R3 - You roll to maintain the Grapple with a +5 bonus, dealing another hit's worth of damage from Grab and a) if you have rope, may tie the Foe up and make them truly Helpless and may escort them to jail/steal their things/go full-on murderhobo/etc, or b) choose the Damage option and deal Damage + Grab damage. Foe remains helpless and keeps futilely attempting escape, hoping the dice roll lucky, but more likely fail because you're still rolling at +5. Roll fails and Foe continues to sob on the ground and take your gut punches, claw attacks, or, ya know, whatever...Scenario 2 seems far superior. :)
So many things wrong with scenario 2:
R1 - Move up to Attack+Grab foe so it can't escape, dealingR2 - You roll to maintain the Grapple with a +5 bonus, dealing one hit's worth of damage from Grab ability, and apply the Pinned with your maintain roll. Foe gains the Pinned condition, and is in serious trouble, so Foe attempts to escape,
R3 - You roll to maintain the Grapple with a +5 bonus, dealing another hit's worth of damage from Grab and a)
So, looking at the correct rules and comparing Scenario 1 and Scenario 2:
R1: Both scenarios are the same, you move up, attack once and grab, doing damage once. You get full attacked (opponent gets -2 on attacks but you get -2 on AC so that's even, no benefit to you).
R2. Scenario 2 is good for you because you have GRAB so you can pin the enemy and do damage once this round which is cool. He is fairly likely to escape since overall he is +2 (not -5) against you when he tries to escape, but at least you force him to waste his action doing that rather than full attacking you.
R3. If he hasn't escaped yet, and if you're a person with rope (not a creature since they don't usually use rope), the Tie Up option is the I Win button (but ropes are terribly easy to get out of for anybody with any ranks in Escape Artist). If you are a creature without rope, all you can do is damage him once a round while he tries to escape, which he might do fairly easily.
How does that compare? Well, if you're a creature with many attacks, like say a giant octopus, you might just want to attack your enemy 8 times instead of grapple once. But if you're a creature with just ONE attack, yeah, grapple and pin and do the same damage each round while preventing the enemy from full-attacking (because he's pinned). If you can. If he doesn't escape.l
No, you only damage once because GRAB doesn't let you cause damage; you need CONSTRICT to do damage again and most CREATURES don't have that, and almost ZERO people have it.
More precisely, because Grab only causes damage on "successive rounds".
How so?
Because unless you only have 1 attack (maybe 2), your full-attack is likely to deal far more damage than a single Grab.
(Also... The stuff DM_Blake pointed out)
Touché.
I seem to have regressed a bit to a time where grapples were contested rolls. Whoops!
Still, forcing your opponent to waste their turn escaping a Pin is no small advantage.
Still, forcing your opponent to waste their turn escaping a Pin is no small advantage.
Correct.
Now, if you have GRAB and only one attack, you can do the same damage by grab/release, grab/release, grab/release as you can by grab/hold as long as possible. But you might cause your opponent to lose attacks when he tries to escape instead of attack.
But, if you have more than one attack, then the grab/release, grab/release, grab/release process lets you do many damaging attacks instead of only one damaging grab. It may very well allow you to defeat your opponent much faster and perhaps with less damage if you repeatedly release the opponent.
If you can succeed at the grapple rolls, pinning seems better than releasing and then making more attacks (if you're not outnumbered). With a pin, you inflict damage every round, and your opponent can only try to break free. The best case scenario for your pinned opponent is that they'll escape, using up their turn - at which point, you get to full-attack again.
Touché.
I seem to have regressed a bit to a time where grapples were contested rolls. Whoops!Still, forcing your opponent to waste their turn escaping a Pin is no small advantage.
That depends on who has the more valuable action... After all, the grappler is wasting his action as well.
That is not to say that Grapple is always bad. Quite the contrary, it has same great situational use (grappling a Wizard... If you manage to touch him, that is) and is downright amazing with enough investment (possibly the best maneuver in the game)... But it does require a lot of investment to reach that point. 4~6 feats at very least.
I think Grapple is a confusing and divisive enough subject that Paizo might do well to go into detail when clarifying it, covering even stuff which seems obvious to many folks like the extra damage from Grab, maintaining a pin while using other actions, attacking with two hands separately (instead of while using a two-handed weapon), whether Claws are “hands”, etc.
@Lemmy - Based on recent experiences I'd say that if you're willing to invest in it Dirty Trick is probably the best maneuver long term. It took my Dirty Fighter literally 12-13 levels to really get it going full speed though he had a lot of fun at lower levels with Trip combos (still useful when somebody silly enough to not be flying, serpentine, etc shows up). Grapple can be devastating too, but a fair amount of stuff is difficult or dangerous to grapple, and Freedom of Movement is only a 4th level spell. I guess if there were a feat to beat FoM I might change my opinion (the Tetori class ability is all I know of). Body Shield is great fun though and would be absolutely brutal if you ruled that Grab+Constrict damage activated from the grapple check.
Ah, yes... I forgot about Dirty Trick... Which is odd since I'm playing a Psychic Warrior focused on it... Quick Dirty Trick FTW!
That said, Grapple can still outdo it on occasion. Though Freedom of Movement does beat it, like the overpowered spell that it is. -.-'
