|
If a character successfully grapples a flesh golem, does the flesh golem get both of its slam attacks? Or is it limited to one slam because it's limited to one-handed attacks. A flesh golem has 2 slam attacks (one slam each hand, or 2 slams with one hand?).
What if a character is grappling another character with a longsword and shield? Does the character with shield lose the shield bonus to his AC because "it's tied up in the grapple"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the rule is not using 2 handed weapons in a grapple (as they are too big) one can still use two one-handed(or light) weapons. also natural weapons are always light and when you grapple you can use all of them -instead of trying to win a grapple when some1 else grapple you. if you are the grappler full attacking with all natural weapons usualy mean letting go of the grapple.
also see #2 in this faq here
Zza ni's slightly wrong, ' In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. ' - so one slam only.
Assuming that the slams are from fists or similar, anyway.
Zza ni's slightly wrong, ' In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. ' - so one slam only.
Assuming that the slams are from fists or similar, anyway.
each slam is it's own. as #2 in my link show full attack with natural weapons.
as i said it has been explained that the two hand is for items (or activities) that must use both hands at once to perform (as swinging a two handed weapon) but using each hand separately is allowed (as two weapon fighting OR using two natural weapons.)beside slam attacks while mostly with arms are not limb limited. see slime's slam attacks.
Zza ni's slightly wrong, ' In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. ' - so one slam only.
Assuming that the slams are from fists or similar, anyway.
each slam is it's own. as #2 in my link show full attack with natural weapons.
as i said it has been explained that the two hand is for items (or activities) that must use both hands at once to perform (as swinging a two handed weapon) but using each hand separately is allowed (as two weapon fighting OR using two natural weapons.)beside slam attacks while mostly with arms are not limb limited. see slime's slam attacks.
#2 on your link just says a full attack is possible. It doesn't say anything about overriding the rule that an action which takes two hands to perform is out.
Where, in your opinion, does it explain that using each hand separately (TWF, natural weapons) is allowed while being grappled?
An ooze with no discernable or weird anatomy would not be so limited. A flesh golem has very discernable anatomy, it's Frankenstein's Monster, and has a couple of fists to slam with.
Most biped-shaped creatures with slam attacks use their arms to slam and are thus limited when their hands aren't available (e.g., storm giant holding a greatsword. It stands to reason that such creatures would not be able to use that arm to slam if said arm was restricted, similarly to how a creature cannot TWF using weapons in both hands while grappled.
Basically, a full attack with both slams would require both hands (arms, whatever), so it wouldn't work. If the golem had a light or one-handed weapon in one hand (and could otherwise use it), it could totally do an iterative full attack with that light weapon. But slams are natural attacks, so you only get one per available limb/head/whatever able to make the attack.
Oozes and other creatures that slam with either their entire bodies or arbitrary portions of their bodies don't really have this restriction, but it's very clear that creatures both slam attacks and arms slam with their arms.
A humanoid flesh golem still has a forehead, knees, elbows and other body parts that would be quite effective in a grapple. I'd allow a full attack.
Golems are not necessarily bipedal. You can make them look however you want.
But most are, and the stats for the bog-standard Bestiary ones (flesh, clay, stone, iron) are for bipedal humanoids. A quadrupedal or legless golem would have different CMD against trip attacks; a four-armed golem would have four slams/weapons/whatever; and so on.
Hands are not arms. You don't need hands to make a Slam Attack, I have not found a rule that says you need 2 hands to make 2 Slam Attacks.
I cited the natural attack rules above, but I'll highlight the relevant portion. If it isn't decisive enough for you, that's understandable.
Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type.
(Emphasis mine.)
If you've decided that golems are more like oozes or pachycephalosauruses in that their slams are independent of their arms, that's fine--play it that way.
If you're more concerned with "hand" versus "arm", the above quote should demonstrate that whoever wrote that passage felt that using up an arm was pretty much the same as using up the hand attached to that arm when it comes to figuring out what body parts are still available for attacks. But again, if that's not convincing, that's fine.
It isn't whatever. Your argument here literally depends upon hand-waving (arm-waving?) the rules!
I prefer to call it "arm-flailing". : )
Well, cite the rules that say that if you have an arm, but you don't have a hand, you need 2 hands to make 2 Slam Attacks, but you don't have hands, and if you have a Slam Attack, you don't need hands to make a Slam Attack.
I have no idea what you're asking for here, but if it isn't cited above, I have no further citations.
Let me give you a counter-sample.
If you grappled a Dire Tiger, would you not let the Dire Tiger make its Full Attack? You'd be the first GM I heard of that would not allow that.
Yes, it could make a full attack, but it'd be short by one claw.
Just to be clear, both the golem and the dire tiger can make full attacks in either case. It's a matter of what attacks they have available to make as part of said full attack, not whether a full attack can be made in the first place. In some cases a full attack might only consist of one attack, in which case the creature can simply make a standard attack instead.
The quote you cited from Jason Bulmahn suggests otherwise:
Q: The Huge ant-lion was grappling the dire tiger and the guy running the dire tiger...
Yes, the dire tiger could rake if it began the turn grappling its target. It doesn't need either of its forelegs available to rake with its hind legs.
Basically a purple worm iron golem should have different stats to the standard one. Or a flesh golem made from tigers should be different to a standard flesh golem, even a clay golem made in the shape of a horse, its rider and the riders' greatsword should be different from the standard clay golem. Cool ideas, not well represented by the basic stats, I don't take such as proof that the standard golem with two slams can do them without its arms and hands.
Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type.(Emphasis mine.)
Note the words: clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam.
Sounds like a slam is a single limb attack and not a two handed attack.
As a GM, that grppled flesh golem will get both slams.
/cevah
Grappled doesn't care about whether an attack requires one or more limbs, only whether an action does. A full-attack is an action. If that action requires both limbs, you cannot perform it while grappled. A golem can make a full-attack action provided that it doesn't require both limbs. Got a sword? Go ahead and use a full attack action. Got two arm-based slams? Can't use 'em both, so a full attack action would be no better than a standard attack action.
If the slam requires the use of both arms, I would agree. But since a slam is done with a single limb, I don't see how the grappled condition stops it.
/cevah
That's the category error. A slam is not an action, it's an attack. Looking at whether you can slam while grappled is meaningless--of course you can. Grappled prevents things on the action level (e.g., standard attack, full attack, move, bull rush, etc.), not the attack level. If you choose an action (such as full attack), and that action--including the decisions you make resolving said action--requires the use of both hands, you cannot do it.
Think of it this way: While grappled, you could play a ukulele one-handed with some difficulty, but you couldn't play the Scheherazade violin solo. This isn't because the action "use Perform (string instrument) to play a song" requires two hands--it's because the specific decisions and circumstances of your desired action (slam with one hand and then the other, or play a violin piece requiring both fretting and sweeping bow work) require two hands.