Hoping someone could help me out with a question. Lets say I grapple my foe with two free hands, my small scythe is in my scabbord or wherever. During the round when I want to throat slice, I need to maintain etc so if it requires a move action to draw my scythe I have a problem. Any advice on how I can start my grapple unarmed so I don't take the -4 penalty and I can pin and slice some throats on the second round? (via greater grapple of course)
Quickdraw Feat
Are you talking about utilizing the Throat Slicer feat?
The easy way is to wear a gauntlet, which is a light weapon and thus qualifies for throat slicer. Re-flavor it as using your scythe.
If for some reason you think that you don't take the -4 penalty if you make the Combat Maneuver roll and then draw your weapon...that's not what the rules say. The rules say you take a penalty if you don't have both hands free, I interpret that to mean that if your hands aren't free the entire round you take the penalty.
|
Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll.
Is there a rule I don't know about? This says it applies to the roll not for the round. As I read it, it does not even apply to CMD.
What if you grapple, draw a potion for an ally, drop it as a free action? Is the a retro-active -4. What if you draw, drop grapple no -4? How does this reading interact with great grapple, and quick catch manacles?
I will freely admit I'm not a grapple expert and my be missing something.
I would like to use a pick or scythe one handed in order to use throat slicer ya but i dont want to take the -4. I also don't have any spare feats to take quick draw. That 4x multiplier is needed. What type of weapon could i put in my wrist sheath?
Katar tri blade should fit.
Awesome! thanks a lot
I would like to use a pick or scythe one handed in order to use throat slicer ya but i dont want to take the -4. I also don't have any spare feats to take quick draw. That 4x multiplier is needed. What type of weapon could i put in my wrist sheath?
The 4x multiplier is needed, it's just something you want to make it more effective to coup-de-grace someone.
Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll.Is there a rule I don't know about? This says it applies to the roll not for the round. As I read it, it does not even apply to CMD.
What if you grapple, draw a potion for an ally, drop it as a free action? Is the a retro-active -4. What if you draw, drop grapple no -4? How does this reading interact with great grapple, and quick catch manacles?
I will freely admit I'm not a grapple expert and my be missing something.
Yes, I'm of the opinion that you need both hands free for the entire round, or else the penalty would retroactively apply.
I'll admit that's it's not hard RAW, but I do feel that's how it should be run. Why? Because grappling is like having a hold on an opponents limb. If you let go with one hand at any point, it should be harder to maintain a hold of your opponent.
|
I would think you need two hands free the entire time you are grappling. So before you initiate the grapple, you could take out a potion and drop it, and then still make the grapple check without the penalty. But once you’re in the grapple, you’re in the grapple. You don’t lose the grappled condition once you maintain for the round. You’re grappling for the entire round unless you’re going to release the grapple. So if you’re going to draw/use a weapon while grappling, you take the -4 penalty on the check to maintain the grapple.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First off, requiring 2 hands free for the entire round is "applying real-world logic".
Yes it makes sense, no thats not what the rules say, and for good measure.
Imagine you need a 15 to succeed at the grapple check, and you rolled a 17
First Scenario:
Standard action to maintain a grapple, and you chose to inflict damage.
Then you decide to draw a weapon to attack with next round.
So, Free action, release 1 hand, move action draw dagger.
Second Scenario:
You are a Monk with the Stunning Pin feat.
Standard action to maintain a grapple, you chose to pin the target.
Swift action use Stunning Pin on the pinned target, expending 1 use of Stunning Fist.
Move action to draw a potion, to heal yourself with next round.
If you try to retroactively apply a -4 penalty to either scenario at this point , things get wonky. Whats worse, there is no written rules on how to "unwonk the wonk" and resolve this problem, so you have to make those up as well.
Retroactively applying a -4 penalty for not having both hands free would cause the grapple check to fail. In the first scenario, if you fail the grapple check you deal no damage, as you cannot utilize the "damage" option.
Do you revert the hitpoints?
In the second scenario, retroactively applying the penalty would undo the pin action.
Is the creature no longer pinned?
You used Stunning Pin on the target, but that required that you first succeed at a pinning the target. If that is retroactively undone, what happens to the Stunning Fist attempt? Is it removed too? Does it refund the resources spent?
In these cases, the homebrew rules based off of "real-world logic" can lead you further from RAW and deeper into homebrew, as you are required to invent more fixes for the problems that arise.
Also, as a general, don't dabble with Retroactive rules or Retcons. They tend to become very messy fixes.
While you could just let go of the target with both hands instead of just one when you go to take the move action, there might be tangible benefits to maintaining the grapple, even with only 1 hand.
Examples like preventing someone from attacking with a 2-handed weapon, the +5 bonus for maintaining the grapple next round, or allowing yourself to do something like pin the next round.
Instead, the way the rules are written, you only have to succeed at one grapple check at one point within the round. That could be the beginning of the round, somewhere in the middle or at the very end. Everything that happens after that check (except releasing the grapple entirely) does not change that result
Anything that happens BEFORE that check could affect the check, if you were grappling someone, then removed a hand to draw a potion THEN made the check as a standard action to maintain the grapple, you would take the penalty.
Yes, this does allow it to be taken advantage of to some degree, but it does simplify a lot of very different situations that can arise, such as the Grab ability with twf full attacks, weapons with the Grapple ability, and other effects like unusual spells.
First off, requiring 2 hands free for the entire round is "applying real-world logic".
Yes it makes sense, no thats not what the rules say, and for good measure.
Imagine you need a 15 to succeed at the grapple check, and you rolled a 17First Scenario:
Standard action to maintain a grapple, and you chose to inflict damage.
Then you decide to draw a weapon to attack with next round.
So, Free action, release 1 hand, move action draw dagger.Second Scenario:
You are a Monk with the Stunning Pin feat.
Standard action to maintain a grapple, you chose to pin the target.
Swift action use Stunning Pin on the pinned target, expending 1 use of Stunning Fist.
Move action to draw a potion, to heal yourself with next round.If you try to retroactively apply a -4 penalty to either scenario at this point , things get wonky. Whats worse, there is no written rules on how to "unwonk the wonk" and resolve this problem, so you have to make those up as well.
Retroactively applying a -4 penalty for not having both hands free would cause the grapple check to fail. In the first scenario, if you fail the grapple check you deal no damage, as you cannot utilize the "damage" option.
Do you revert the hitpoints?In the second scenario, retroactively applying the penalty would undo the pin action.
Is the creature no longer pinned?
You used Stunning Pin on the target, but that required that you first succeed at a pinning the target. If that is retroactively undone, what happens to the Stunning Fist attempt? Is it removed too? Does it refund the resources spent?In these cases, the homebrew rules based off of "real-world logic" can lead you further from RAW and deeper into homebrew, as you are required to invent more fixes for the problems that arise.
Also, as a general, don't dabble with Retroactive rules or Retcons. They tend to become very messy fixes.While...
I agree