If my lizardfolk gets polymorphed into something with a bite+grab attack, what bonuses do I get to the grapple attempts?
Specifically, i have:
weapon focus (bite)
an amulet of mighty fists
weapon training (natural)
Do any of these apply to the grapple from the grab ability on my bite attack?
Anyone know?
If my lizardfolk gets polymorphed into something with a bite+grab attack, what bonuses do I get to the grapple attempts?
Specifically, i have:
weapon focus (bite)
an amulet of mighty fists
weapon training (natural)Do any of these apply to the grapple from the grab ability on my bite attack?
I believe they all do, since they all apply to attacks made with your bite, and the grapple is being made with your bite.
(And of course you get the +4 to grapple for having a grab attack at all.)
I'm not sure about the weapon focus bite helping. You need to use both arms in the grapple as well, and that could mean that it isn't bite related enough after the initial grapple check. You'd definitely get it if you took the -20 to only use the initiating attack to maintain the grapple.
I'd really prefer weapon focus with the grab linked attack to always help, I can't find any ruling for it though.
Yes but no? Which is correct?
Anyone have the rules to back up what is applied to the bite-grab grapple?
|
Looking at a couple of examples, it looks like in their published material, at least, Paizo does not include Weapon Focus (bite).
Look at the Dire Weasel.
+8 w/bite from +3BAB +5STR +1WF(bite) -1Size
And listed as CMB +9 (+13 grapple). The extra +4 comes from the grab ability. The CMB comes from +3BAB +5STR +1Size.
Weapon Focus (bite) is not included.
I believe there’s an FAQ or statement somewhere that amulet of mighty fists doesn’t add to a normal grapple check. I don’t think it’s spelled out that that includes grab, but based on how they are calculating things with a weapon focus, I don’t think the amulet would apply either. As was noted earlier in the thread, you’re not grappling with the bite. You’re still grappling as normal. So I don’t think this becomes a combat maneuver with a weapon.
Mark Seifter a week or so ago did his Arcane Mark vlog about grappling, but this particular question didn’t come up.
I believe there’s an FAQ or statement somewhere that amulet of mighty fists doesn’t add to a normal grapple check.
Found it! Their logic is a bit weird as mentioned a couple posts later, but the PDT is the PDT. And posters seemed to think the ruling implied that AoMF would help on a grab attack, but they're not the PDT, so....
If you've been polymorphed into something with bite+grab (as per the OP) but which lacks arms and tentacles---like the Dire Weasel---then you must be grabbing and grappling with the bite, you don't have anything else to do it with. So I don't see why they didn't apply WF(bite) to the Dire Weasel. :-(
|
|
Because grapple is not one of the combat maneuvers that can be performed with a weapon (specific exceptions excluded).
Weapon Focus (grapple) is a thing, so you could just take that if you really want the extra bonus, though it's really probably not worth a feat. You already get a +4 from grab, and boosting CMB is pretty easy.
If you can select weapon focus grapple, does that make a grapple a weapon and if so what weapon group is it in for weapon training?
|
|
Except that your bite is not explicitly occupied after you make the grab attack. If you have some way to maintain the grapple as a move action, you could still bite someone else as your standard.
The FAQ you linked also says:
Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon (natural weapons and unarmed strikes are considered weapons for this purpose) to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses (enhancement bonuses, feats such as Weapon Focus, fighter weapon training, and so on) apply to the roll.
Without something stating that you make the grab with your natural attack, you don’t. The closest we’ve got is from the grab ability:
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.
So if you take the -20, it could be argued you’re using the natural weapon. Otherwise, you conduct the grapple normally, and normally does not include using a weapon. See the FAQ for why.
If you can select weapon focus grapple, does that make a grapple a weapon and if so what weapon group is it in for weapon training?
(I have a spare weapon training choice after getting the natural weapon group and want to use it for grapple (If its a weapon, which I guess it must be for it to be eligible for weapon focus?))
If you can select weapon focus grapple, does that make a grapple a weapon and if so what weapon group is it in for weapon training?
(I have a spare weapon training choice after getting the natural weapon group and want to use it for grapple if its a weapon, which I guess it must be for it to be eligible for weapon focus?)
It is not a weapon. I don't have a quote for that, but I do have one that shows being eligible for Weapon Focus doesn't make something a weapon:
[...]Certain special abilities (for instance rays, kinetic blasts, and mystic bolts) can specifically be selected with feats like Weapon Focus and Improved Critical. They still aren’t considered a type of weapon for other rules; they are not part of any weapon group and don’t qualify for the effects of fighter weapon training, warpriest sacred weapon, magus arcane pool, paladin divine bond, or any other such ability.[...]
Oh that sucks. Thank you though.
|
|
If you are conducting the grapple normally, you are grappling with the weapon and something else.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 you are conducting the grapple normally, you are not grappling with the weapon.
No, because of the FAQ.
Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon (natural weapons and unarmed strikes are considered weapons for this purpose) to perform the maneuver,
If you perform the grapple normally, and normally you don’t get bonuses from the weapon, then you don’t get bonuses. If you’re using the weapon, then you’re not performing the grapple normally.
Grab gives you the free chance to grapple, but to make the grapple you use the normal rules. Unless you take a -20.
It’s the same situation as grapple and bonuses to Unarmed Strike. You’re clearly using hands and arms and things involved in an unarmed strike when you grapple, but you don’t get the bonuses to them when you grapple.
You have already benefited from Weapon Focus (bite) when making a grab. You benefitted from it on the roll to hit with the bite, which means you’ll get a chance to grab more often. Not that you’re any better at grabbing things once you get that chance. That’s a separate Weapon Focus.
I’ve provided an example from the bestiary demonstrating Paizo includes the feat for the bite attack and does not include the feat for the grab. I can provide more. Can you find an example where they do include it in the grab? If your response is that you don’t care how Paizo implements their own rule or that it doesn’t matter, then I think I’ll politely exit the conversation, because there’s no real point in continuing it.
|
|
Grab states that you conduct the grapple normally. If you mean when you take a -20, I’ve said there’s an argument that you get the bonus there. But when the ability explicitly says to use the normal rules, the normal rules say you don’t get the bonus, and every available example does not include the bonus, I’m pretty sure you don’t add the bonus.
Edit: There’s only a single ability in the game that I’m aware of that states that you perform a grapple with a weapon. That’s the Hangman Brawler. And that also states that you don’t get bonuses with the weapon when performing the grapple.
Grab says with the body part... which is not explicitly saying with the weapon. But I can see the argument there... if you’re taking the -20.
There’s designer follow up to that FAQ. I’ll try to track it down later.
|
|
So THIS POST is the best argument for it working.
So... My monk has Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike) and is wearing an Amulet of Mighty Fists +1. Does this mean he gets to add those two bonuses to other Combat Maneuvers such as Grapple?I'd file that under "the GM is free to rule that in certain circumstances, a creature can apply weapon bonuses for these maneuvers."
Which would make it table variation. But that doesn’t make it the rule. I think there’s later follow up that makes this more explicitly not work, but having trouble finding it.
SKR unfortunately stopped posting in that thread before directly answering for grab, which was asked toward the end.
Edit: If you do rule that way as a GM, make sure to add the bonus in for creatures, because it’s not included in the stat blocks.
|
|
No. I’m saying the text says you don’t get the bonus when grappling normally, and that the text says to grapple normally. That is what the text says. It doesn’t matter if you’re using the bite and other parts of your body or not. Weapon Focus (bite) gives you a bonus to bite, not to grapple. You only get weapon Focus (bite) when you are only using your bite. Not when you happen to have already bit someone and are now grabbing them with your arms. And that is what conducting the grapple normally means. One of you limbs will be occupied, because you are using it to grapple. You take a -4 if you don’t have two hands free... because you are using them to grapple. That is conducting a grapple normally.
The only time you are only using your bite is when you are taking the -20.
Repeatedly in that blog thread trip, disarm, and sunder are called out as the only maneuver that can be made with a weapon. A couple of exceptions are made for maneuvers with a whip when you have Greater Whip Mastery. Even when SKR talks about follow up maneuvers from a creature, he stated trip, disarm, and sunder. Unless an ability says, “You may use a weapon to grapple and get all of the bonuses associated with that weapon on the grapple check,” then you don’t. That is “explicitly” stating something. A GM is free to make a judgement call when something is not explicit and give you the bonuses, but that is up to the GM, and that doesn’t mean that every GM has to agree with you. Because it’s not explicit in the rules. If it was, there would be no need for the GM to have to make that judgement call.
Why trip, disarm, and sunder? Because when you are using a weapon to perform those maneuvers, you are only using the weapon. Why the exceptions for whip? When you reposition someone with a whip, you are only using a whip. When you grapple normally, you are not only using your natural attack. Unless you take the -20.
And here’s the thing about grab... once you’ve hit with the attack that triggers the grab, you don’t have to use that body part in the grapple attempt at all. If you have grab with a natural attack and something else (like Hangman’s Noose) that lets you grapple with a different weapon, you can elect to grapple with that other ability, because that’s an option that you have when grappling normally. Grab is giving you the grapple attempt. And it gives you a +4 on that attempt. That’s it. That’s all it does. Unless you take the -20.
|
|
If that’s how you want to rule a froghemoth/swallowed whole work, then can it swallow whole if it grabs a creature with any of its other attacks beside its mouth? Does it have to let them go and grab them again with its mouth in order to swallow whole? If not, how does it transfer them from one of its other attacks to its mouth? What action is that?
(The text of swallow whole is information that hasn’t been quoted yet in this thread, and the first thing that hints at a relation between the grapple and a body part without mentioning the -20. Actually quoting rules instead of repeatedly stating that words don’t say what they say is helpful).
|
|
If that’s how you want to rule a froghemoth/swallowed whole work, then can it swallow whole if it grabs a creature with any of its other attacks beside its mouth? Does it have to let them go and grab them again with its mouth in order to swallow whole? If not, how does it transfer them from one of its other attacks to its mouth? What action is that?
(The text of swallow whole is information that hasn’t been quoted yet in this thread, and the first thing that hints at a relation between the grapple and a body part without mentioning the -20. Actually quoting rules instead of repeatedly stating that words don’t say what they say is helpful).
Well, in most debates, most people just hammer the same arguments again and again. This time at least, I brought 2 new pieces of evidence: subsequent Grapple Damage would do the Damage from the Attack with Grab, and the Swallow Whole ability.
I would say the Froghemoth would be unable to Swallow Whole any creature that is not Grappled in its mouth.
The Tentacles have Constrict. Continued Grappling would result in Constrict Damage.
The Tongue has Grab; the Mouth has Grab. The description of the Frogemoth I read says the tongue pulls the victim into its mouth. Seems reasonable.
Releasing a Grapple when you are the one in control is a Free Action. It seems reasonable to me that a Froghemoth with a full tentacle and an empty mouth might Bite a creature in its Tentacle then Release from the Tentacle, having transferred the creature to it's mouth. But then would have to wait until the following round to Swallow Whole.
All of that sounds fine. I think the deals the damage from the attack from the grab part is just mostly repeating that you can deal damage as part of a grapple check to maintain, but that's a different discussion. But if what you say is true, then you wouldn't be able to deal damage with a weapon or a different attack, then, as you'd be limited to the attack that you grabbed with.
If you want to limit grab like that, and like you discuss with the Froghemoth, that's fine. It's just not clear from the actual grab ability that it is limited that way.
To clarify (again) what I've been saying... A GM is perfectly within their right to rule that the natural attack is not incidental to the grapple. But they can also rule that it is. That is what happens when something is not explicitly stated in the rules. And getting all of your bonuses from the attack on the grapple check is not explicitly stated in the rules, no matter how many times someone claims that it is. It can be interpreted from the rules, but it is not stated. What is stated is that you conduct the grapple normally. To me, that means you get a free chance to grapple that works like every other grapple that you would normally make. And you don't get weapon bonuses on those. But a GM can rule otherwise for a specific instance, and that's not a problem. If you take the -20, then I'd rule you get the bonuses, although even that is not directly stated in the rules or the FAQ.
I'm honestly more ok with including Amulet of Mighty fists bonuses on the check, since that ruling with unarmed strikes never made sense to me. Weapon Focus (grapple), however, is different than Weapon Focus (bite). It's creating a situation in which someone can have and gain the benefit from both on the same grapple check that's the biggest problem created. If you're ok with that, then go for it.
EDIT:
Releasing a Grapple when you are the one in control is a Free Action. It seems reasonable to me that a Froghemoth with a full tentacle and an empty mouth might Bite a creature in its Tentacle then Release from the Tentacle, having transferred the creature to it's mouth. But then would have to wait until the following round to Swallow Whole.
Double checking on this part... Would you require an attack roll for the bite? Would you require a grab roll for the bite in order to complete the transfer? If not, then there'd be no maintaining of the grapple in any form, so the creature wouldn't be grappled at the end of the turn.
EDIT EDIT: And would the Froghemoth get the +5 for maintaining the grapple on the grab roll with their bite/tongue?
|
|
To clarify (again) what I've been saying... A GM is perfectly within their right to rule that the natural attack is not incidental to the grapple. But they can also rule that it is.Interesting. I am saying that for a lot of reasons, Grab is clearly using a Natural attack to Grapple with, and you are saying that since it is not directly and explicitly stated except in the case of declaring that your opponent is Grappled and you aren't by using only the limb and sucking up a -20 on the check. Meanwhile, you're not exactly disagreeing with me (us?) about how clear it is that you are using a natural attack to grapple with when you are using Grab: you're pointing out that a GM might well seize upon sufficient vaguery.
I'm disagreeing that you are only using the natural attack to grapple, and my reading of the FAQ and why they picked those three maneuvers is that you are only using the weapon when you perform them. If you're grappling with your arms, body, and bite, then you aren't just grappling with the bite, and you don't get the bonus. Using the grab and the attack helping is already accounted for in the +4 that you get to grapple. If you are only grappling with your bite (by taking the -20), then I see it as consistent with the other items in the FAQ.
If what you are saying is true, then a creature with Swallow Whole would not be able to use Swallow Whole without taking a -20 on his Grapple Check, since you couldn't be Grappled in the creature's mouth if you weren't using the mouth to grapple with. And I've certainly never heard of any GM imposing a -20 on his own Swallowing-Whole monster!
That's not exactly how I would view it, since Swallow Whole doesn't say they must only be grappled by the creature's mouth. Succeeding on a grab from the bite or tongue would be enough. Whether or not the creature's limbs are involved, they'd still have the target in their mouth. But I'm coming around to the idea that it only works after a grab using a bite or similar attack.
That is, admittedly, a little weird. Bonuses from the same source are not supposed to stack, and here we have stacking from taking Weapon Focus twice. Weapon Focus Grapple and Weapon Focus Bite are 2 different Feats, though. If you have Weapon Focus Halberd and Improved Trip, you get to add the +1 from WFH and the +2 rom IT. Another precedent, sort of, is that if you have Vicious Stomp and Greater Trip, you get 2 Attacks of Opportunity: 1 from Great Trip for Tripping them, and 1 from Vicious Stomp because he went Prone. If IT, GT, WFH, and VS can stack, then why not WFB and WFT?
Because "grapple" is the weapon in Weapon Focus (grapple), so you're using two weapons, effectively. Weapon Focus (trip) isn't defined anywhere (though might be inferred from the existence of WFgrapple)). Improved Grapple exists and gives the same bonus as Improved Trip. So Weapon Focus (grapple) and Weapon Focus (bite) stacking is something that does not happen in any other instance in the game. And you could then take Greater Weapon Focus with both, etc.
The Great Trip/Vicious Stomp thing doesn't appear relevant here. You're not getting two AoOs for the same thing. There are other instances where two parts of the same action can provoke separately (casting a spell and making the ranged attack from the spell). But beyond all of that... AoOs are not bonuses and not relevant in this situation.
Good catch on the +5. I thought the word maintain was in there somewhere, but it's not.
Regarding the -4 for not having a free hand... The rule is "Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll." So it doesn't apply to a Froghemoth at all. But it would apply to a White-haired Witch or a Tetori or any other humanoid with grab or an ability that functions similarly, unless they have another ability/Feat to remove it.
|
|
Except that nothing in grab says that you have to use the natural attack in the grapple check at all. It’s triggered by the natural attack, yes, but after that it’s a normal grapple. That does mean the natural attack is incidental to the grapple. Think of it like pounce. You’re getting all of your attacks on the pounce. You’re using everything on the pounce. The pounce triggers rake. But you don’t get WF (bite) on your rake attacks.
Nothing in white-haired witch says it removes the -4 penalty for not having both hands free. The -4 penalty for not having both hands free has nothing to do with whether or not you have the grappled condition. You take the -4 on grapple checks if you don’t have both hands free. Period. Much like the dan bong, it might be an oversight, but that’s the way the rule is written. A GM is of course allowed to say that it makes sense to remove the penalty, or to grant AOMF, but as written, that is not what the rules say is the case. It’s a similar situation to a creature using grab at -20, so I might rule the same way. What it means is table variation, because it requires a GM to make a decision.
At any time in the discussion of the blog, SKR could have said “a creature can get its bonuses with its natural attack on the grapple when a creature uses its grab ability.” That would have definitely cleared things up. Instead, he repeatedly listed three maneuvers, then left it up to GMs to decide beyond that. The rule is that those three maneuvers use a weapon, and the others do not. That means that you need to ask your GM about every other instance. That is what the blog/FAQ says. In the absence of a GM ruling for a specific situation, you do not get the weapon bonuses on a grapple check. Which is probably why none of the stat blocks for creatures with grab include Weapon Focus in their bonuses to grapple/grab.
What we’re discussing is not what the rule is. We’re discussing how each of us would rule on a situation created by the rule. I don’t see how you can be grappling with the natural attack, get all of the bonuses you get with that natural attack, and yet not have that natural attack be the “limb” that is occupied in the grapple. You’re still free to attack anyone else with the attack that you’re using to grapple, but you can’t wield a two-handed weapon, because one of your hands is being used for the grapple? Then the attack is incidental to the grapple.
And you are already getting a significant bonus just for having the grab ability. That reflects the contribution that the natural attack makes, and you get it on all of your grapple checks whether they are from the grab or not. That is the bonus it grants when you “conduct the grapple normally.”
|
|
Nothing in white-haired witch says it removes the -4 penalty for not having both hands free.There's no particular reason to suppose that a White Haired Witch who is Grappling someone in her hair does not have 2 hands free. She does not even have the Grappled Condition itself.
You missed the point. If the WHW is holding something in hand when she starts the grapple, she takes a -4. If she’s got a metamagic rod in one hand, for example. It’s weird, and probably an oversight, but so is dan bong, and yet that’s the rule. And it doesn’t matter whether she will gain the grappled condition or not. If she doesn’t have anything in her hands, then she doesn’t take the penalty.
At this point I think we’ve both explained why we’d rule how we’d rule.
|
|
Because grapple says so. Not the grappled condition. Grapple.
Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll.
I’m not saying it’s a good rule. WHW should probably make an exception, but it doesn’t. Just like the dan bong “helps” you grapple by giving you a +2 bonus, but also doesn’t remove the -4 penalty. Effectively giving you a -2. It makes sense that an item designed to help you grapple would make it easier to grapple, but in reality it makes it harder unless you have another way to remove the penalty.
It’s an artifact of the rules. Things only change what they say they change.
Let’s assume for a second WHW does remove the penalty. And they are holding a Dan bong. Do they get the +2? Dan bong doesn’t say you are using the Dan bong to grapple, just that it gives you a bonus to grapple. It’s another oddity if the rules.
What might seem to make sense from a visualization of the ability isn’t necessarily what is true when reading the rules. WHW doesn’t remove the -4 penalty just because it says you are grappling with your hair or that you don’t gain the grappled condition. The penalty is in a different place in the rules and has to specifically be addressed. The only way around that is a GM ruling.
Similarly, back to whether or not you get bonuses from a natural attack on a grab, the faq/blog says you don’t by excluding grapple from the list of maneuvers performed with a weapon, unless a GM makes an exception. So you don’t get the bonuses unless a GM makes an exception. You can’t assume that the GM will rule that way. The general rule is only trip, sunder, and disarm add weapon bonuses, unless the GM determines that the weapon is not incidental to the maneuver. The part where the GM has to make a determination is what keeps it as table variation.