If taken literally, a standard wolf or dog can't grapple, a Nightmare can't use its hooves to shove, and an animated broom can't trip a target.
Intentional?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So don't take it literally. The "free hand" language is intended for humanoid combattants with 2 hands. Non-humanoid combattants should still be able to attempt those actions with a free paw, muzzle or pseudopod.
So don't take it literally. The "free hand" language is intended for humanoid combattants with 2 hands. Non-humanoid combattants should still be able to attempt those actions with a free paw, muzzle or pseudopod.
I have a mind not to, but I'm wondering if it was intentional for some sort of balance reason and how it will work out in official contexts like Society play.
For example, Dire Wolves can grab but standard wolves only knockdown. It's not clear if the "free hand" wording is intentional to limit those athletic actions by critters like the standard wolf, or if it's an oversight that will be ignored.
This is like asking if centaurs can climb just the same as a player character. The rules are meant for humanoids. Commonsense applies.
This is like asking if centaurs can climb just the same as a player character. The rules are meant for humanoids. Commonsense applies.
Well duh, centaurs have hands. :-P