Hi everyone, I am currently gmming and this came up multiple times: if a creature grappled attacks, can it use its multiple attacks?
It says that you can do just a single attack, but it also says that under the examples about anything done with hands. I could say claws is involved in it, but tentacles? Wings? Tail? Bite?
And what about multiple limbs? If you have 4 hands, or maybe 8, you get just one attack?
A player is sure that it's so, reading the Raw. I say its the opposite, and reading online seems everyone thinks the same. But I'd like a sure answer, where it's explained. Thanks in advance.
Okay here's grapple.
We have Grappler G.
We have target T, this guy is grappled by G.
G grapples and succeeds.
T can either; try to reverse the grapple or free himself, or can full attack with a light or one-handed weapon, which includes natural attacks.
G Can maintain the grapple with a +5, if he succeeds he can either pin T or Damage T with the damage of 1 attack. Yes G, if maintaining the grapple gets the damage of 1 attack, even if he had 1000 attacks in a normal full attack.
If a Catfolk with Claws is Grappled, she only gets 1 of her Claw Attacks. A Grappled creature cannot take Actions that require more than 1 hand to perform.
I would say that a Tengu with Claws and a Bite only gets 1 Natural Attack, too.
So if, for examples, the target is a dragon, he can only use the bite, no claws, wings and tail to what should be the stupid guy who grappled it? Well, if it is so I'll abide to rules.
What confused me was: you can take any action that doesn’t require two hands to perform
Mouth doesn't require an hand, as wings and tentacles, so I thought the could be added in the full attack.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: If a Catfolk with Claws is Grappled, she only gets 1 of her Claw Attacks. A Grappled creature cannot take Actions that require more than 1 hand to perform.
I would say that a Tengu with Claws and a Bite only gets 1 Natural Attack, too.
Bite attacks don't require a hand.
The creature being grappled is not restricted in number of attack (save for the 1 hand being restrained). For example, if using a weapon he still gets all iterative attacks. He could also TWF, assuming he had an appropriate weapon not requiring the use of a hand.
Never, ever grapple a dire tiger.
It is painful.
If someone grappled the dragon then the dragon can use all it's attacks on the thing that grappled it. None of his attacks requires two hands to use.
Now the thing grappling the dragon can maintain the grapple and then do the damage of 1 attack.
Or if the Dragon was grappling with it's bite then on it's turn, if it maintains the grapple it would do the damage of it's bite and that's it.
Chess Pwn wrote: If someone grappled the dragon then the dragon can use all it's attacks on the thing that grappled it. None of his attacks requires two hands to use.
Now the thing grappling the dragon can maintain the grapple and then do the damage of 1 attack.
Or if the Dragon was grappling with it's bite then on it's turn, if it maintains the grapple it would do the damage of it's bite and that's it.
That's what I thought. But here's the thing(sorry if I seem repetitive, but the argument isn't ended, and we didn't get to a point we agree both) from the srd.
"Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that doesn’t require two hands to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you."
Now, I say: anything not requiring two hands, and "such as" thing is just an example. I don't see a problem with mouth, wings, tentacles and tails.
He says: It says you can make a full attack with "A" light or onehanded weapon, so also for natural attacks.
If I am right, how should I make it more clearer?
Or am I just wrong?
Quote: Natural weapons are considered light weapons. Do know, it's is difficult to understand what you're saying. Maybe try using longer sentences when describing your view and his view?
Maggix94 wrote: Chess Pwn wrote: If someone grappled the dragon then the dragon can use all it's attacks on the thing that grappled it. None of his attacks requires two hands to use.
Now the thing grappling the dragon can maintain the grapple and then do the damage of 1 attack.
Or if the Dragon was grappling with it's bite then on it's turn, if it maintains the grapple it would do the damage of it's bite and that's it.
That's what I thought. But here's the thing(sorry if I seem repetitive, but the argument isn't ended, and we didn't get to a point we agree both) from the srd.
"Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that doesn’t require two hands to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you."
Now, I say: anything not requiring two hands, and "such as" thing is just an example. I don't see a problem with mouth, wings, tentacles and tails.
He says: It says you can make a full attack with "A" light or onehanded weapon, so also for natural attacks.
If I am right, how should I make it more clearer?
Or am I just wrong? The vast majority of rules are written from the perspective of a standard character: humanoid, only two hands, using manufactured weapons, etc.
In this case, the rules are discussing a full attack from the perspective of a PC making iterative attacks with a manufactured weapon - the standard used by nearly all core rulebook characters.
Chess Pwn wrote: Quote: Natural weapons are considered light weapons. Do know, it's is difficult to understand what you're saying. Maybe try using longer sentences when describing your view and his view? Sorry, I'll try to be more clearer. He says that natural weapons are considered light, in which case "An attack or fullattack with A light weapon" means the creature grappled can make an attack(or fullattack) with a single natural attack, not with multiple ones(taking the dragon example, he can only use the bite, one of the claws, one of the wings or the tail).
In my opinion, it should be seen as an example of the sentence you can take any action that doesn’t require two hands to perform.
The fact is: how do I make it clear?
I think your best best is to show him this thread where people are saying you get to do a full attack with light weapons. Because you can't full attack with a bite, since you only get one attack with natural attacks. But if they are the GM this might be a new houserule that you'll have to deal with.
Snowlilly wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: If a Catfolk with Claws is Grappled, she only gets 1 of her Claw Attacks. A Grappled creature cannot take Actions that require more than 1 hand to perform.
I would say that a Tengu with Claws and a Bite only gets 1 Natural Attack, too.
Bite attacks don't require a hand.
The creature being grappled is not restricted in number of attack (save for the 1 hand being restrained). For example, if using a weapon he still gets all iterative attacks. He could also TWF, assuming he had an appropriate weapon not requiring the use of a hand.
Never, ever grapple a dire tiger.
It is painful. Fair to ssy, but arguably, a Claw + a Bite requires "more than 1 hand." If I had a natural attacking Tengu, I wouldn't bet on being able to get more than 1 natural attack against my Grappler.
Chess Pwn wrote: If someone grappled the dragon then the dragon can use all it's attacks on the thing that grappled it. None of his attacks requires two hands to use.
Now the thing grappling the dragon can maintain the grapple and then do the damage of 1 attack.
Or if the Dragon was grappling with it's bite then on it's turn, if it maintains the grapple it would do the damage of it's bite and that's it.
Because a Dragon doesn't have hands? Pretty sneaky, sis! I would complain to my GM if he did that.
Snowlilly wrote: Maggix94 wrote: Chess Pwn wrote: If someone grappled the dragon then the dragon can use all it's attacks on the thing that grappled it. None of his attacks requires two hands to use.
Now the thing grappling the dragon can maintain the grapple and then do the damage of 1 attack.
Or if the Dragon was grappling with it's bite then on it's turn, if it maintains the grapple it would do the damage of it's bite and that's it.
That's what I thought. But here's the thing(sorry if I seem repetitive, but the argument isn't ended, and we didn't get to a point we agree both) from the srd.
"Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that doesn’t require two hands to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you."
Now, I say: anything not requiring two hands, and "such as" thing is just an example. I don't see a problem with mouth, wings, tentacles and tails.
He says: It says you can make a full attack with "A" light or onehanded weapon, so also for natural attacks.
If I am right, how should I make it more clearer?
Or am I just wrong? In this case, the rules are discussing a full attack from the perspective of a PC making iterative attacks with a manufactured weapon - the standard used by nearly all core rulebook characters. Vis a vis the humanoid assumption conceit, I would say that Claws and Talons count as Hands. I would expect a GM to rule that my Grappled Wildshaped Druid would only get 1 Natural Attack, but his dragon would get all of hers.
*masking an expletive with a coughing sound*
The vast majority of rules are written from the perspective of a standard character: humanoid, only two hands, using manufactured weapons, etc.
Previously when this was discussed, there was a lot of uncertainty on whether or not full-attacking with multiple natural weapons violated the "you can take any action that doesn’t require two hands to perform" clause. But the Slashing Grace FAQ makes it pretty clear that it does:
Slashing Grace: In the 2nd printing errata, what exactly does it mean that “You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied?” Can I use a shield? What about a buckler? Can I use flurry of blows? Brawler’s flurry? Two-weapon fighting? Spell combat? Attack with natural weapons? What if I throw the weapon? What about swordmaster’s flair?
Slashing Grace does not allow most shields, but bucklers work because they don’t occupy the hand. Flurry of blows, brawler’s flurry, two-weapon fighting, and spell combat all don’t work with Slashing Grace. Attacking with natural weapons beyond the weapon you chose for Slashing Grace also does not work. Slashing Grace only works with melee attacks, not thrown attacks with a melee weapon. Swordmaster’s flair should have a sentence added to it that says “Carrying a swordmaster’s flair counts as having that hand free for the purpose of abilities that require a free hand, though you still can’t hold another object in that hand.”
Bolded on most relavent bits, but this FAQ pretty much tells you that attacking with multiple natural weapons qualifies as an action that requires multiple hands.
no it says that attacking with multiple natural weapons doesn't count as having a hand free. It does not take two hands to attack with any of those weapons.
Chess Pwn wrote: no it says that attacking with multiple natural weapons doesn't count as having a hand free. It does not take two hands to attack with any of those weapons. Slashing Grace no longer requires a free hand, it was changed to actions requiring only one hand, which is the first bolded statement. The FAQ clearly states that attacking with multiple natural weapons constitutes occupying an additional hand, which clearly violates the grappling rules.
no, it's prevented when the off hand is occupied. Occupied doesn't equal needing two hands to use. Otherwise you couldn't attack with a dagger if you had a light shield. Do you say, because of this FAQ, that a player would need to take the action and remove their shield before they could full attack with their dagger? Would you require them to drop their dagger before they could full attack with shield bashes?
I certainly don't see this FAQ as saying attacking with a dagger requires two hands if your other hand is holding anything or using a shield. Nor anything that says a shield bash requires two hands if you're holding a dagger.
Basically the slashing grace FAQ is that they don't want more than the one attack with dex to damage. Not that holding something and attacking with your other hand requires two hands.
Chess Pwn wrote: no, it's prevented when the off hand is occupied. Occupied doesn't equal needing two hands to use. Otherwise you couldn't attack with a dagger if you had a light shield. Do you say, because of this FAQ, that a player would need to take the action and remove their shield before they could full attack with their dagger? Would you require them to drop their dagger before they could full attack with shield bashes?
I certainly don't see this FAQ as saying attacking with a dagger requires two hands if your other hand is holding anything or using a shield. Nor anything that says a shield bash requires two hands if you're holding a dagger.
Basically the slashing grace FAQ is that they don't want more than the one attack with dex to damage. Not that holding something and attacking with your other hand requires two hands.
Full-attacking with a dagger while wielding a dagger does require two hands. You literally have two hands occupied at that time, even if it doesn't count as an action requiring two hands for grappling. But that is different from the case at hand. Natural weapons don't passively occupy a hand. So the only way they don't work is if it is attacking with multiple natural weapons that counts as a two hand action which does violate the grapple rules.
Chess Pwn wrote: no it says that attacking with multiple natural weapons doesn't count as having a hand free. It does not take two hands to attack with any of those weapons. Is that a fact? Oh well, if it says so, it says so.
It’s fairly easy actually if you just look at the conditions.
grappled: Both combatants gain that condition unless they have special powers that say otherwise.
You cannot move, -4 DEX Penalty, -2 penalty to ALL attack rolls and combat maneuver checks EXCEPT those made to grapple, or to escape that grapple.
You can make no action that NEEDS two hands to perform. (neither a bite, nor a claw, nor a tail slap, nor a wing buffet NEED two hands to be performed to begin with)
You may cast spells, but can’t use spells that require somatic components.
You also can’t make Attacks of opportunity at all even not against the creature that is in the grapple with them (so you don’t need to cast defensively for example if the only threatening enemy is your grappler)
Making a grapple check is a STANDARD action, unless you have special powers (or feats) that say otherwise. So if the Grappler uses a Standard action to maintain the grapple it can’t make a full attack by no means because it already used up a standard action and has no full action available any more.
However! While the Grappler HAS to make a grapple check to maintain the grapple the Target can choose NOT to make a grapple check and has instead its whole action available. Which means having a full round action available and thus being able to make a full attack at the grappler with the -2 penalty to hit due to having the grappled condition and maybe another -2 if the Target was relying on the DEX mod to hit.
So yes indeed any creature can make a full attack with ALL its natural attacks against anything that trys to grapple it, that’s why grappling builds are most vulnerable in the first round when they initiate the grapple since it needs a standard action just to start it and they get to maintain it as a move action (greater grapple feat) the NEXT turn. In between the target gets a move and can unleash hell on whoever was grappling it. After that on Round 2 the Grappler may PIN the target which prevents it from attacking at all.
Which I quite frankly find ridiculous that EVERY SINGLE combat maneuver has a size restriction, but grapple does not. Even the thought of a a Halfling grappler pinning a gargantuan dragon is beyond me…
Ratnap wrote: Which I quite frankly find ridiculous that EVERY SINGLE combat maneuver has a size restriction, but grapple does not. Technically false: there is no size restriction on Dirty Tricks, but I take your point.
Here I disagree with you precisely and profoundly. I think no Combat Maneuver should have a Size Restriction.
Ratnap wrote: I quite frankly find ridiculous... Even the thought of a a Halfling grappler pinning a gargantuan dragon is beyond me… Yes, it's ridiculous, but I think the idea of a Halfling Grappling a Colossal Dragon is also friggin' awesome!
I feel like if a Halfling thinks he's badass enough to Bull Rush a rhinoceros, then by all means, the GM should let him try and let the hilarity ensue! If it just so happens that the Halfling IS badass enough to Bull Rush that rhinoceros, then by all means let him, and let even more hilarity ensue! To my mind this admitted departure from verisimilitude is the very heart and soul of heroic fantasy.
You can rightly say that Morei Ueshiba, the creator of Aikido, would never be able to Trip an elephant, but Xena the Warrior Princess could. You can say that Alexander Karelin, the legendary Lithuanian Olympic Wrestler, would never be able to wrestle a Kodiak bear, but Hiawatha could. The difference between my Grappling character, Olga Blakovitch and Alexander Karelin is that he is a real person made of bones and meat like what crunch and tear in bears' jaws, and she is a fantasy hero made of imagination and ideals. The difference between her and Xena the Warrior Princess is that Xena is higher level.
RATNAP is spot on with his post.
This for those who are confused with the "such as" text for what you can't do without two free hands if this wasn't mentioned already...
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.
So the other entry included something like; ...such as casting a spell or making a full attack with a light or one-handed weapon. There are clearly rules for concentration checks to cast a spell while grappled. That means that the "SUCH AS" thing is referring to the things you CAN do... to include a full attack action with a light or one handed weapon. This would not apply to Two-Weapon Fighting or wielding a one handed weapon with both hands for additional damage.... because that uses 2 HANDS.
As stated by others, Natural Attacks are considered Light Weapons so yeah, grappling a dragon will not end well for you unless you can pin it. Remember that these attacks are not part of a grapple check and only a creature that is not the dominant grappler can make this full attack if it chooses to do so. A pinned creature can't do anything other than attempt to escape.
A creature that is maintaining a grapple, on success, can do so to deal damage with a light or one handed weapon or one natural attack. Don't forget the +5 circumstance bonus... or the -4 penalty for grapple checks without 2 free hands if you are holding something. The -4 penalty would not apply to a natural attack, even if it is a claw, slam or any other natural attack that belongs to a limb being used to grapple.
I understand you it's still a very hard thing to wrap my head around :p
Interesting note on grapple, as things stand with the whole 'hands of effort' thing as applied to grapples you are forced to take a -4 to your CMB.
grapple wrote: Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll. Since grapple requires two hands to perform and you cannot actually do anything requiring two hands while grappling, you must take the -4 penalty.
thorin001 wrote: Interesting note on grapple, as things stand with the whole 'hands of effort' thing as applied to grapples you are forced to take a -4 to your CMB.
grapple wrote: Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll. Since grapple requires two hands to perform and you cannot actually do anything requiring two hands while grappling, you must take the -4 penalty.
What do you think should happen if you have something else, like Witch's White Hair or an Alchemal Tentacle, 1 hand free and the other using a Shield (or something)? Do you think the Hair or the Tentacle should count as a "hand" with respect to having 2 hands free? I think it should, but I don't think it officially, technically does.
thorin001 wrote: Interesting note on grapple, as things stand with the whole 'hands of effort' thing as applied to grapples you are forced to take a -4 to your CMB.
grapple wrote: Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll. Since grapple requires two hands to perform and you cannot actually do anything requiring two hands while grappling, you must take the -4 penalty.
While I get your point... I would note that there is a difference between requiring a hand be free in order to be allowed to do something, and requiring that the same free hand actually be USED to perform a specific action.
For Example:
Archon Diversion
Crane Wing
Snapping Turtle Style
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
What do you think should happen if you have something else, like Witch's White Hair or an Alchemal Tentacle, 1 hand free and the other using a Shield (or something)? Do you think the Hair or the Tentacle should count as a "hand" with respect to having 2 hands free? I think it should, but I don't think it officially, technically does.
White hair which allows you to grapple the opponent with hte hair without ever gainning the grappled condition - as such - you never gain the restriction of only being able to perform actions that do not require two hands.
the alchemist discovery Tentacle says the tentacle actually has the grab ability - which means that it can, on its own (i.e. without any hands free) make a grapple check without penalty.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Snowlilly wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: If a Catfolk with Claws is Grappled, she only gets 1 of her Claw Attacks. A Grappled creature cannot take Actions that require more than 1 hand to perform.
I would say that a Tengu with Claws and a Bite only gets 1 Natural Attack, too.
Bite attacks don't require a hand.
The creature being grappled is not restricted in number of attack (save for the 1 hand being restrained). For example, if using a weapon he still gets all iterative attacks. He could also TWF, assuming he had an appropriate weapon not requiring the use of a hand.
Never, ever grapple a dire tiger.
It is painful. Fair to ssy, but arguably, a Claw + a Bite requires "more than 1 hand." If I had a natural attacking Tengu, I wouldn't bet on being able to get more than 1 natural attack against my Grappler. Please enlighten me; which hand is used to bite?
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Vis a vis the humanoid assumption conceit, I would say that Claws and Talons count as Hands. I would expect a GM to rule that my Grappled Wildshaped Druid would only get 1 Natural Attack, but his dragon would get all of hers.
*masking an expletive with a coughing sound*
The vast majority of rules are written from the perspective of a standard character: humanoid, only two hands, using manufactured weapons, etc.
Per multiple developers, stated on many occasions, when arguments arose over non-human body structures.
Calth wrote: Chess Pwn wrote: no it says that attacking with multiple natural weapons doesn't count as having a hand free. It does not take two hands to attack with any of those weapons. Slashing Grace no longer requires a free hand, it was changed to actions requiring only one hand, which is the first bolded statement. The FAQ clearly states that attacking with multiple natural weapons constitutes occupying an additional hand, which clearly violates the grappling rules. Only as applied to the limitations of the Slashing Grace feat.
Snowlilly wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: Snowlilly wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: If a Catfolk with Claws is Grappled, she only gets 1 of her Claw Attacks. A Grappled creature cannot take Actions that require more than 1 hand to perform.
I would say that a Tengu with Claws and a Bite only gets 1 Natural Attack, too.
Bite attacks don't require a hand.
The creature being grappled is not restricted in number of attack (save for the 1 hand being restrained). For example, if using a weapon he still gets all iterative attacks. He could also TWF, assuming he had an appropriate weapon not requiring the use of a hand.
Never, ever grapple a dire tiger.
It is painful. Fair to ssy, but arguably, a Claw + a Bite requires "more than 1 hand." If I had a natural attacking Tengu, I wouldn't bet on being able to get more than 1 natural attack against my Grappler. Please enlighten me; which hand is used to bite?
** spoiler omitted **
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Vis a vis the humanoid assumption conceit, I would say that Claws and Talons count as Hands. I would expect a GM to rule that my Grappled Wildshaped Druid would only get 1 Natural Attack, but his dragon would get all of hers.
*masking an expletive with a coughing sound*
The vast majority of rules are written from the perspective of a standard character: humanoid, only two hands, using manufactured weapons, etc.
Per multiple developers, stated on many occasions, when arguments arose over non-human body structures. The right hand.
Snowlilly wrote: Calth wrote: Chess Pwn wrote: no it says that attacking with multiple natural weapons doesn't count as having a hand free. It does not take two hands to attack with any of those weapons. Slashing Grace no longer requires a free hand, it was changed to actions requiring only one hand, which is the first bolded statement. The FAQ clearly states that attacking with multiple natural weapons constitutes occupying an additional hand, which clearly violates the grappling rules. Only as applied to the limitations of the Slashing Grace feat.
Incorrect. The FAQ is on what the term "occupies another hand" means, and gives a list of things that count for that. It extends beyond slashing grace, just like the gang up FAQ extends beyond that specific feat.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Snowlilly wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: Snowlilly wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: If a Catfolk with Claws is Grappled, she only gets 1 of her Claw Attacks. A Grappled creature cannot take Actions that require more than 1 hand to perform.
I would say that a Tengu with Claws and a Bite only gets 1 Natural Attack, too.
Bite attacks don't require a hand.
The creature being grappled is not restricted in number of attack (save for the 1 hand being restrained). For example, if using a weapon he still gets all iterative attacks. He could also TWF, assuming he had an appropriate weapon not requiring the use of a hand.
Never, ever grapple a dire tiger.
It is painful. Fair to ssy, but arguably, a Claw + a Bite requires "more than 1 hand." If I had a natural attacking Tengu, I wouldn't bet on being able to get more than 1 natural attack against my Grappler. Please enlighten me; which hand is used to bite?
** spoiler omitted **
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Vis a vis the humanoid assumption conceit, I would say that Claws and Talons count as Hands. I would expect a GM to rule that my Grappled Wildshaped Druid would only get 1 Natural Attack, but his dragon would get all of hers.
*masking an expletive with a coughing sound*
The vast majority of rules are written from the perspective of a standard character: humanoid, only two hands, using manufactured weapons, etc.
Per multiple developers, stated on many occasions, when arguments arose over non-human body structures. The right hand. Kidding aside, what I was getting at is that if the Grappling rules prohibit taking actions that require more than 1 hand to perform, a Claw + a Bite from a Tengu would be more than 1 hand. Not 2 hands, granted, but a hand + something else is more than 1 hand.
I am not endorsing this interpretation. I am offering this as an interpretation that a GM could plausibly take. And it's one I think would be well-examined by this thread.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Kidding aside, what I was getting at is that if the Grappling rules prohibit taking actions that require more than 1 hand to perform, a Claw + a Bite from a Tengu would be more than 1 hand. Not 2 hands, granted, but a hand + something else is more than 1 hand.
I am not endorsing this interpretation. I am offering this as an interpretation that a GM could plausibly take. And it's one I think would be well-examined by this thread.
How would you apply this argument to a tiger? It has no hands, only primary attacks. (Not taking Rake into consideration, as it is expressly permitted.)
Note: the tiger (and most monsters) does not suffer a -4 penalty, as that only applies to humanoids.
Snowlilly wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Kidding aside, what I was getting at is that if the Grappling rules prohibit taking actions that require more than 1 hand to perform, a Claw + a Bite from a Tengu would be more than 1 hand. Not 2 hands, granted, but a hand + something else is more than 1 hand.
I am not endorsing this interpretation. I am offering this as an interpretation that a GM could plausibly take. And it's one I think would be well-examined by this thread.
How would you apply this argument to a tiger? It has no hands, only primary attacks. (Not taking Rake into consideration, as it is expressly permitted.)
Note: the tiger (and most monsters) does not suffer a -4 penalty, as that only applies to humanoids. Well, Chess Pwn says the rules definitively say that creatures like tigers and dragons enjoy natural attacks requiring no hands. I don't really remember. I'm taking his word for it. I said this already. If you scroll up a bit, you will find my post that says, "Is that a fact? Oh well, if it says so, it says so."
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
