Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Egres 03-08-05, 03:37 PM	New weirdness. From the RotG article: If a creature has natural weaponry, it deals lethal natural weapon damage with a successful opposed grapple check (its natural weapons are just like unarmed strikes). A creature with natural weaponry can choose to deal nonlethal damage in a grapple by taking a -4 penalty. Now, let's check the SRD: Damage Your Opponent: While grappling, you can deal damage to your opponent equivalent to an unarmed strike. Should we expect other house rules from Skip? From when an Unarmed Strike is like a Natural Weapon?
fatlosermatt 03-08-05, 03:45 PM	i think he meant "in this situation, natural weapons function like unarmed strikes"
tarkin 03-08-05, 04:06 PM	Yes, this is yet one more time when people try to use literalistic readings to "prove an error". D20 is NOT that well written. It can NOT stand up to the ridiculously high standards that some people expect. When dealing with a specific case, you can't generalize side comments for all other purposes. Always assume, unless the comment is the main issue being discussed, that all side comments only apply to the specific case being discussed. In no way can a reasonable person read this and think "Skip is making up a new bad house rule". He is clearly just discussing grappling, and for that case, natural weapons count as unarmed attacks, but are not interchangeable for everything else.
lukelightning 03-08-05, 04:11 PM	I thought it was obvious that he was clarifying that a creature can do natural weapon damage on a grapple check, without the -4 penalty. A crocodile should not have a penalty for doing lethal damage while chomping on your leg.
Egres 03-08-05, 04:11 PM	He is clearly just discussing grappling, and for that case, natural weapons count as unarmed attacks, but are not interchangeable for everything else. But this is an HR, no matter how you try to defend him, tarkin. In a RotG article we should expect to find rules, not house rules. Nowhere you'll find a way to state that the PHB description of the Grapple special attack could be seen the way he described it. Unarmed Strikes aren't Natural Weapons. Period.
TrustTymora 03-08-05, 07:33 PM	Tarkin - again you hit the mark as usual. I personally think he missed clarifying that creatures with natural weapons also should not be using the BaB to determine the number of maneuvers that they can attempt during a grapple. Creatures with natural weapons NEVER use BaB to determine the number of attacks they get so forcing them into using it all of a sudden during a grapple just doesn't make sense and misses the mark. Until this is also "officially" clarified I guess we will still have silly players grappling owlbears and trolls because they will insist the creature only gets one grapple maneuver based on its BaB. Fortunately my players aren't that silly! I don't have to be worried about the "curse of the owlbear" where the creature has improved grab and a tendency to grab prey only to be far less effective then if it didn't get into grapple mode. Although, officially we are now using a house rule. So be it. TT
mvincent 03-08-05, 07:51 PM	Should we expect other house rules from Skip?From the few articles I've read, I've also noticed several "clarifications" that flat out contradict the rules.
Nom 03-08-05, 09:47 PM	Where do we start? Rake (Ex): A creature with this special attack gains extra natural attacks when it grapples its foe. Normally, a monster can attack with only one of its natural weapons while grappling, but a monster with the rake ability usually gains two additional claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe. Rake attacks are not subject to the usual –4 penalty for attacking with a natural weapon in a grapple.Two things are quite clear from this: (1) Normally, a creature with natural attacks can only use one of it's natural weapons while grappling. (2) Normally, a creature using a natural weapon in a grapple suffers the normal -4 for using a weapon in a grapple. From this we can deduce (3) a grappling creature may make normal iterative grapple actions based on its BAB, but if these are attacks it must use unarmed damage or use natural weapons at -4 (and possibly only 1 per round). Note that improved grab will allow the creature to automatically deal damage with its grabbing weapon on a successful grapple check (on successive rounds).
Prism 03-08-05, 10:45 PM	I thought it was obvious that he was clarifying that a creature can do natural weapon damage on a grapple check, without the -4 penalty. A crocodile should not have a penalty for doing lethal damage while chomping on your leg. I have no problem with the idea that a creature that is naturally good at grappling could do full natural weapon damage in a grapple - this is pretty much covered by those creatures with improved grab But I see no justification for a creature that is not particularily any good at grappling being able to do this. Why should a centaur be able to grapple with its hooves and deal lethal damage with all of its grapples Also, although I can see what Skip is trying to do - giving iterative grapples to PC's and natural attack routine grapples to monsters - it just doesn't work when you consider that there are a number of monsters that have both iterative and natural attacks that they use at the same time Also if you allow monsters to have one grapple attempt per natural attack then it means that they can also have more pin attempts. A carrion crawler would be a considerably better grappler than a giant constrictor simply because it has so many attacks and therefore grapple attempts that it is likely to beat its opponents grapple attempt at least once or twice
TrustTymora 03-09-05, 02:26 AM	Also if you allow monsters to have one grapple attempt per natural attack then it means that they can also have more pin attempts. A carrion crawler would be a considerably better grappler than a giant constrictor simply because it has so many attacks and therefore grapple attempts that it is likely to beat its opponents grapple attempt at least once or twice Agreed, certain creatures could be abused but it's the DM who runs the creatures. With the vast array of creatures I guess you can find some where it doesn't make sense and others where it does. It's just easy for my players to envision a bear getting 2 claws and a bite in a grapple. If I ask them I would bet that it is easy for them to envision the carrion crawler attacking with all 8 tenticles if one of them were foolish enough to initiate a grapple with it. I wouldn't however initiate a grapple with the creature unless the combat section indicated that it was a preferred method of fighting. And I'm not sure about that giant constrictor comment...that thing is wicked! As it stands right now it gets 2 grapple attempts based on its BaB at +23 with each successful grapple doing 2d8+20 (Initial damage as per improved grab ability + constrict damage as per constrict ability). Considering this thing is a CR5 wow! However if you played using its Full Attack entry it would only get one grapple attempt at +23 doing 2d8+20 which seems more reasonable to me. TT
d_nychus 03-09-05, 03:48 AM	That's nothing. This is the section that really drives me nuts. You can't attack with two weapons while grappling, even if both are light weapons. If you have multiple natural weapons, however, you can use all of them while grappling. In many cases, though, you're better off making an opposed grapple check to damage your opponent rather than making an attack with a natural weapon (see the section on damaging your opponent for details). That statement alone is directly in contradiction with at least two listed rules sections. One is the PHB/SRD section on Attacking an Opponent while grappling. The other is the Rake section, as listed above by Nom. Both state that a character, and specifically in the Rake section, cannot attack with more than one weapon a round while grappled, regardless of whether it is an unarmed strike, a natural weapon, or a light weapon. I just don't get where Skip is coming by this ruling.
TrustTymora 03-09-05, 05:06 AM	That's nothing. This is the section that really drives me nuts. That statement alone is directly in contradiction with at least two listed rules sections. One is the PHB/SRD section on Attacking an Opponent while grappling. The other is the Rake section, as listed above by Nom. Both state that a character, and specifically in the Rake section, cannot attack with more than one weapon a round while grappled, regardless of whether it is an unarmed strike, a natural weapon, or a light weapon. I just don't get where Skip is coming by this ruling. I agree that those are the 2 most cited rules sections when I have tried to explain grappling along the lines that Skip has. And you are correct that is literally what the rules as written say. Put simply, grappling rules as written and followed literally are messed up when you use creatures that have natural attacks. Skip is now trying to clarify intention with respect to using the rules with these creatures. The problem is the grappling section in the PHB was written with....well with PCs in mind not creatures. Sure there is a sprinkle of natural weapon here etc. etc. but it is more of an after thought that doesn't work. When you have people suggesting that a good tactic is to grapple a troll or owlbear because it will only get one attack due to the BaB of the creature you just have to know that the section needs work because the intention of it is not getting through. Skip is trying to give the quick fix in a series of articles. Unfortunately quick fixes often introduce problems because they don't properly address other sections, such as the Rake ability description. I happen to think that the articles are a good first step to correcting the intention of a very messy section of rules. Modify the Rake section by taking out "Normally, a monster...." and just start the sentence with "A monster with the rake ability..." and things are starting to get cleared up for creatures with natural attacks in a grapple. TT
Prism 03-09-05, 05:36 AM	Agreed, certain creatures could be abused but it's the DM who runs the creatures. Its polymorphing and wildshaping goodness that I'm also thinking about. Quite a few creatures get both iterative and natural attacks - in fact pretty much any creature with a weapon in one hand. Technically this may mean that they get a full iterative grapple sequence and now in addition get a full attack sequence with their other natural weapons - although at -4
The_Ditto 03-09-05, 08:10 AM	My interpretation of what Skip wrote doesn't lead to contradictions ... well, not the major ones that have been pointed out .. They way I take it: Fighter with BaB +11/+6/+1 and Str +4 (btw I'm making up numbers ... ) vs Bear with BaB +10 and Str + 6 and size + 4 (w/ imp grab) and 2 Claws +17 and Bite +12 Once grappling ... Fighter has options: 1) Attack opponent with light weapon: @ +11/+6/+1 ... excluding any bonuses for the specific weapon .. it counts BaB + Str - 4 or 2) Damage opponent with grapple check: @ +15/+11/+7 .. but only does d3 non lethal. the Bear, however has these options: 1) Attack opponent with natural weapon: @ 2 Claws +13 and Bite +8 or 2) Damage opponent with natural weapon: @ Claw or Bite: +20 (Bab + Str + size) Note it can either "Flail" with quantity of attacks .. but not as good a chance at hitting ... or it can "bear hug" you style ... 1 big attack that's more than likely going to get your attention ... Just my opinion on how I think it's all working ... it seems to be consistent with most of what's been quoted .. both Core and RotG ... Contradictions? some, sure .. but you know what? there were contradictions before this RotG came out!! so we know he's clarifying things ... he has to contradict some rules IMHO in order to clarify what's really supposed to happen!!
Tiax returns 03-09-05, 08:29 AM	In reponse to the Troll/Owlbear argument, Take an "average" party of Fighter, Rogue, Wizard & Cleric (no, I've never seen this actually happen either, but most four player parties are at least fairly similar). The fighter ends up in a grapple, and the player thinks 'Woot! Now I'm (relatively) safe!' what he isn't thinking of is that now the primary damage dealer in the party is nearly useless. Unless a character is built for grappling, then by 4th-5th level, they won't be able to stand up to a +14 grapple mod, and while the fighter is slowly being eaten, the other three characters will be stuggling to bring him down, as at that level, anyone but a fighter is a little out of their depth in combat. 'But one of my players is an orc barbarian with STR 24! (28 while raging)' I hear you cry. It happens, particularly if you let players roll Uber stats (I've seen games where the players rolled 5D6 re-rolling 1's and rolling two sets then taking the best!) or give them Uber point buy (40 pts anybody?). Well, if you're doing that, you should be throwing three to four owlbears instead of one to compensate for their power. The same goes for games with high player counts (most players at one table I've seen is eighteen). Also, if you go by the 'attacks by natural weapon' house rule, tigers go NUTS! As if pouncing for five attacks weren't enough, you want to give them the same number of grapple checks as well? Believe me, two rakes plus a micellaneous(sp?) grapple check is scary enough for a CR4 monster. So I'm firmly on the side of 'attacks by base attack bonus' for monsters, as well as PCs. One other question that's been bugging me: flurry has no effect in a grapple, much the same as you can't attack with multiple natural weapons (at least according to the rules). Take this situation then; a monk decides to flurry, initiates a grapple with his first attack and succeeds. Does he then lose his aditional flurry attack? Just some food for thought.
olshanski_home 03-09-05, 09:55 AM	I am in favor of simply ignoring the wording of "Rake"... that to me doesn't seem to even be a rule, and you certainly wouldn't expect to find the guidelines for how to run a grapple in an obscure subsection of special attacks for a very small number of monsters. There is a contridiction and you have to ignore something or any litereal interpretation of all rules is certain to fail. I think that monsters like owlbears and tigers should be nightmarish grapplers. In the wild, tigers do not kill thier prey by swiping with thier claws... they kill thier prey by grappling. Bear's are infamous for grappling, and I cannot even imagine a bear doing anything except grappling in combat. I think it is fair to give these monsters the benefit of the doubt and let them have thier natural attack sequence during grapples. As far as the multiple natural/iterative attack sequence... this normally only happens with creatures like vampires, liches, armed minotaurs, and things like that. For those creatures I allow them to either use thier attack sequence or thier iterative sequence. The rules at times say that you use your iterative attacks, and in other places say that the monster uses thier natural attacks. I see it as an either-or scenario. A creature that has both natural and iterative attacks must choose which sequence to use. For Tiax Returns: It is sometimes a valid tactic to have a fighter grapple an owlbear. The cleric can deliver healing spells by touch from within threatened area (the owlbear doesn't threaten AoO when it is grappling... unless it takes -20 on a grapple check). The rogue can make free sneak attacks since the owlbear is denied AoO... and the wizard can deliver touch spells that do a lot of damage, also without needing to cast defensively. The fighter still stands a good chance to get wasted even with all of the support.
d_nychus 03-09-05, 12:29 PM	The more I think about this , the more I realize how drastically it screws with established game rules on several fronts. 1) It lessens the Improved Grab ability dramatically. One of the key bonuses to Improved Grab, as directly listed in the MM, is that you can use your natural attack damage instead of an unarmed strike when you damage an opponent with a grapple check. Now, every creature with or without Improved Grab can do that anyways? Then why is it listed as a benefit in the Improved Grab description? 2) There is virtually no reason for a creature to attack with a natural weapon while grappling. You can do the same thing with a grapple check, only without the -4 penalty. Sure, there are a few exceptions that I can think of, like with Small or smaller creatures, or if one has bonuses to hit that are 5 points or better than your grapple check (like through Weapon Finesse). But, overall, it makes attacking an opponent with a natural weapon totally worthless. I'm not saying that every option should be good for every creature with grappling, but when you combine it with the other new changes, it really adds up to making the intended best grapplers worth a lot less overall. Which, by the way, brings us to point three... 3) It makes the best grapplers in the game those with multiple natural attacks regardless of Improved Grab. While this matters little to the kraken or the giant squid (since they have the best of both worlds), this makes a carrion crawler without Improved Grab a better grappler than a bear with Improved Grab. A brown bear, according to this ruling, would three grapple checks, at +16/+16/+11 (at least as how I understand it; it could be +16/+16/+16). A carrion crawler gets 9 grapple checks, 8 at +8, and one at +3. It's not even the 'damage' that bothers me, it's the ability to pin and keep a PC down with literally no chance for escape each round. And the bear is supposed to be a natural grappler. That just does not make a lick of sense to me, at all. Edit: Typos.
TrustTymora 03-09-05, 01:10 PM	The more I think about this , the more I realize how drastically it screws with established game rules on several fronts. 1) It lessens the Improved Grab ability dramatically. One of the key bonuses to Improved Grab, as directly listed in the MM, is that you can use your natural attack damage instead of an unarmed strike when you damage an opponent with a grapple check. Now, every creature with or without Improved Grab can do that anyways? Then why is it listed as a benefit in the Improved Grab description? 2) There is virtually no reason for a creature to attack with a natural weapon while grappling. You can do the same thing with a grapple check, only without the -4 penalty. Sure, there are a few exceptions that I can think of, like with Small or smaller creatures, or if one has bonuses to hit that are 5 points or better than your grapple check (like through Weapon Finesse). But, overall, it makes attacking an opponent with a natural weapon totally worthless. I'm not saying that every option should be good for every creature with grappling, but when you combine it with the other new changes, it really adds up to making the intended best grapplers worth a lot less overall. Which, by the way, brings us to point three... 3) It makes the best grapplers in the game those with multiple natural attacks regardless of Improved Grab. While this matters little to the kraken or the giant squid (since they have the best of both worlds), this makes a carrion crawler without Improved Grab a better grappler than a bear with Improved Grab. A brown bear, according to this ruling, would three grapple checks, at +16/+16/+11 (at least as how I understand it; it could be +16/+16/+16). A carrion crawler gets 9 grapple checks, 8 at +8, and one at +3. It's not even the 'damage' that bothers me, it's the ability to pin and keep a PC down with literally no chance for escape each round. And the bear is supposed to be a natural grappler. That just does not make a lick of sense to me, at all. Edit: Typos. #1 The benifit of not having an AoO and skipping the touch attach roll is still very good. As well the option to use the -20 alternative approach is available if it makes sense for the creature. #2 The article reads that the carrion crawler could use the "Attack your Opponent" section with all of its natural attacks. These attacks would all be at -4 so it would get 8 attacks at -1 (I think I don't have my book) and then a bite at -6. #3 According to the article the carrion crawler is not an effective grappler as it would not use it grapple bonus to make all those attacks. In order to use its grapple bonus it would be using the "Damage your Opponent" maneuver and the article indicates that the number of maneuvers a creature can make is based on the BaB. .....maybe this is the balancing factor I have been worried about. I still like the articles and agree with the intent of it. TT
d_nychus 03-09-05, 01:45 PM	#1 The benifit of not having an AoO and skipping the touch attach roll is still very good. As well the option to use the -20 alternative approach is available if it makes sense for the creature. Again, my problem is that it is a list benefit of the ability that is suddenly worthless. It's like if you took Weapon Focus, and then your DM ruled that you get a +1 bonus to all weapons with which you are proficient, that does not stack with feats. That's why I say it is wrong. #2 The article reads that the carrion crawler could use the "Attack your Opponent" section with all of its natural attacks. These attacks would all be at -4 so it would get 8 attacks at -1 (I think I don't have my book) and then a bite at -6. Yes, that's right, it just has to totally ignore some of the rules as written to be true, which I cannot accept without an errata. #3 According to the article the carrion crawler is not an effective grappler as it would not use it grapple bonus to make all those attacks. In order to use its grapple bonus it would be using the "Damage your Opponent" maneuver and the article indicates that the number of maneuvers a creature can make is based on the BaB. .....maybe this is the balancing factor I have been worried about. I still like the articles and agree with the intent of it. TT When I first read the article, I thought there was a phrase in the Damage an Opponent section that allowed for all natural attacks to be used. Rereading it, I am apparently wrong. A carrion crawler cannot pin an opponent over and over again as I first thought. This is what had me screaming "Bloody BROKEN!!" over here, and I have since calmed down, and informed the neighbors that I am not hunting people for sport, again ;). The article is not as bad as I first thought, just has a couple of minor points that really do not mesh with the RAW. I typically try to use the RAW, FAQ and RotG whenever it is appropriate, but sometimes odd rulings like this make that rather hard to do.
olshanski_home 03-09-05, 01:55 PM	It is my interpretation that when a creature is using its natural attack sequence to damage an opponent, it also uses its natural attack damage. (not the unarmed strike damage). Thus, something like a tiger with improved natural attack (claws) is far more dangerous than if it was using simple unarmed strike damage for a creature of its size (I think large creature unarmed strike damage is 1d4). A tiger or bear should be a more dangerous grappler than a 5th level monk. Therefore, a carrion crawler would get a bucket load of grapple attacks: but 8 of 9 attacks cause no damage... though they could paralyze or pin you. I am just going from my memory that the carrion crawler's attacks do no damage... I might be wrong. There is still a good reason to have improved grab... you get a free grapple attempt without having to face an attack of opportunity, and without wasting one of your regular attacks. Although it is unrelated... it also helps illustrate why facing multiple foes is considerably harder than a single one. A single CR4 tiger grappling your fighter (in a party of 5th level characters) is bad... but the rest of the party can team up on the tiger who is denied its Dex bonus... the rogue sneak attacking, etc. If you throw two tigers in the mix, and each of them can engage a party member in a grapple, then the party is in for some serious hurt.
d_nychus 03-09-05, 02:29 PM	It is my interpretation that when a creature is using its natural attack sequence to damage an opponent, it also uses its natural attack damage. (not the unarmed strike damage). Thus, something like a tiger with improved natural attack (claws) is far more dangerous than if it was using simple unarmed strike damage for a creature of its size (I think large creature unarmed strike damage is 1d4). A tiger or bear should be a more dangerous grappler than a 5th level monk. Again, that is what Improved Grab does, allow you to use natural attacks instead of unarmed attacks. This is listed in the Improved Grab section of the MM or SRD. A tiger has Improved Grab, while a horse does not. Tigers are clearly meant for grappling, while horses clearly are not. However, if one goes by this ruling, a tiger deals only 3 points more average damage per attack than a horse does in a grapple against any creature (rake notwithstanding). And it is like this all creatures now; even some creatures that should not be good grapplers are now almost on similar terms with good grapplers. That is why I dislike this ruling, even ignoring the fact it ignores other rules as written. Therefore, a carrion crawler would get a bucket load of grapple attacks: but 8 of 9 attacks cause no damage... though they could paralyze or pin you. I am just going from my memory that the carrion crawler's attacks do no damage... I might be wrong. Actually, the carrion crawler would only get one grapple check per round, which makes it a lot more balanced. I misread the article earlier. There is still a good reason to have improved grab... you get a free grapple attempt without having to face an attack of opportunity, and without wasting one of your regular attacks. That's decent, possibly a feat worth, but hardly superior to non-grapplers with the ruling in the article. Although it is unrelated... it also helps illustrate why facing multiple foes is considerably harder than a single one. A single CR4 tiger grappling your fighter (in a party of 5th level characters) is bad... but the rest of the party can team up on the tiger who is denied its Dex bonus... the rogue sneak attacking, etc. If you throw two tigers in the mix, and each of them can engage a party member in a grapple, then the party is in for some serious hurt. Or even better, a swarm of chokers at a level 6 party. Seriously, I had no idea it could KILL them...
TrustTymora 03-09-05, 04:07 PM	Or even better, a swarm of chokers at a level 6 party. Seriously, I had no idea it could KILL them... Ya, the Choker is one of those creatures that doesn't look like much but is nasty. TT
DevilKiller 03-09-05, 08:44 PM	I believe that a lot of the text in the article was taken directly from the rules, including the bit about BAB. I'm sure many/most folks will disagree, but I kind of think the Sage pasted in the text from the rules without intending for it to be taken so literally. I could be wrong of course, but I wanted to explain what I'm thinking so the rest of my post wouldn't seem completely nuts. And I'm not sure about that giant constrictor comment...that thing is wicked! As it stands right now it gets 2 grapple attempts based on its BaB Since the Sage, the RAW, and most people on the boards all seem to wildly contradict each other I can't say for sure, but I don't think a creature can use the same natural weapon more than once in a round regardless of BAB. That is to say that I think what the Sage intends is that a creature with natural weapon attacks can substitute one (and only one) grapple attempt for each natural weapon attack it would normally be entitled to. Basically, I think the whole point here is that you can attempt to "do something" in a grapple as many times per round as you can attack. The basis for this is the idea that every time you have an attack you can substitute an opposed grapple check. The exception is for TWF, which specifically doesn't work in grapples for some reason. An 11th level fighter who had a gore attack (say a Krynn minotaur) would be able to attempt to damage you 3 times a round plus a 4th forhis gore. The first 3 would do unarmed strike (or armor spike) damage, and the 4th would do gore damage. Regarding some of the other points being made, Improved Grab is obviously useful in that it gives you a free chance to grapple after every hit. It is pure gravy. Rake gives you a free attack, which is also nice. I think the rules for rake should probably read something like "normally a creature can only use a particular natural weapon once during a grapple". At least then they'd make sense with my view of how grappling is supposed to work ;) Actually, upon further review I find I might have a different view on the RAW even if I wanted to be a complete rules lawyer about things: If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these maneuvers in place of each of your attacks I'm not sure that this quote really says what some people want it to say regarding monsters with high BAB gettig multiple grapples. It says you can attempt one of these manuevers "in the place of each of your attacks". The whole "in the place of" of wording very strongly suggests that you have to have an attack to begin with before you can substitute something for it. A creature with a single natural weapon and a BAB of +40 only has one attack. Therefore he only has one attack to do something "in the place of". Imagine if a colossal super snake with a BAB of +50 were attacked by lots and lots of kobolds. The snake might want to use his BAB for iterative attacks, say unarmed strikes at colossal unarmed strike damage with a -4 to hit to make it lethal. He couldn't though, because he doesn't have an unarmed strike. He just has a natural weapon (bite), and it can only attack once, so he can only attack once. Therefore he'd only have one attack to do a grapple "in the place of". Similarly, dragons can't just say to heck with it and start punching folks with their claw so they get 7 extra grapples...at least not in my world/mind... If you strike out the "If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, " bit I think the rules would make much more sense.
Prism 03-10-05, 09:54 AM	It says you can attempt one of these manuevers "in the place of each of your attacks". The whole "in the place of" of wording very strongly suggests that you have to have an attack to begin with before you can substitute something for it. A creature with a single natural weapon and a BAB of +40 only has one attack. Therefore he only has one attack to do something "in the place of". Where this gets complicated though is that all creatures do get multiple iterative attacks - just not with a natural weapon. Any creature that picks up a sword for example though has the option of making multiple attacks if it has a high BAB. A troll has 3 natural attacks. A troll with a sword has 2 natural attacks and 2 weapon attacks. Even animals (druids) can use opposable weapons A grapple is not an attack with a natural weapon - its a separate option. In fact only one of the grapple options allows the possibility of actually making a proper natural weapon attack. Therefore I think that BAB should apply to monsters no differently from PC's.
Gansk 03-12-05, 09:39 PM	How about this for a compromise? The language in the rake ability is ignored and the creature gets to attack with all its natural weapons at -4. It still has to beat the AC of the opponent to cause natural weapon damage. This happens only when the creature uses the "Attack Your Opponent" option. If the creature uses the "Damage Your Opponent" option, it uses the BAB to determine grapple checks. The damage caused by the creature is lethal unless it applies a -4 penalty to the grapple check. But any creature without improved grab does damage as an unarmed strike, not the natural weapon damage. So a large creature could only do 1d4+strength damage unless it had improved grab. Improved grab would do damage according to the natural weapon used to establish the hold. Large creatures would still have a better chance winning a grapple check than beating a high AC, but the damage potential has a ceiling unless the creature is a natural grappler.
TrustTymora 03-12-05, 10:04 PM	How about this for a compromise? The language in the rake ability is ignored and the creature gets to attack with all its natural weapons at -4. It still has to beat the AC of the opponent to cause natural weapon damage. This happens only when the creature uses the "Attack Your Opponent" option. If the creature uses the "Damage Your Opponent" option, it uses the BAB to determine grapple checks. The damage caused by the creature is lethal unless it applies a -4 penalty to the grapple check. But any creature without improved grab does damage as an unarmed strike, not the natural weapon damage. So a large creature could only do 1d4+strength damage unless it had improved grab. Improved grab would do damage according to the natural weapon used to establish the hold. Large creatures would still have a better chance winning a grapple check than beating a high AC, but the damage potential has a ceiling unless the creature is a natural grappler. Gansk, that is essentially the spirit of the rules and works well. TT
ManTimeForgot 03-12-05, 10:14 PM	Lets use a little bit a logic here people shall we? Just for once? Pretty please? An unarmed strike uses your fists. Your fists are natural weapons. Not all natural weapons are fists; some are claws, some are teeth, some are tentacles, etc. The PHB was written with character races and classes in mind. Given all the above, then what do we do when we deal with something which isn't a character class or race? When an octopus grapples you it isn't using its fists, since quite obviously it doesn't have any. So what is it grappling you with? That's right; it is grappling you with its tentacles. You will notice that creatures with overly large jaws (like a T-Rex) can start a grapple on a successful bite attack, and it didn't use unarmed damage there. A T-Rex or Tarrasque once it has grappled you in its jaws doesn't have to swallow you. Technically it could keep you there because you are held and munch on you all day (you will note the word "can" in the description of improved grab relating to biting grapples). Seems like natural weapons are being used there... Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
Egres 03-13-05, 08:15 AM	An unarmed strike uses your fists. Your fists are natural weapons. Source?
kjenks 03-13-05, 09:22 AM	Lets use a little bit a logic here people shall we? Just for once? Pretty please? An unarmed strike uses your fists. Your fists are natural weapons. Not all natural weapons are fists; some are claws, some are teeth, some are tentacles, etc. The PHB was written with character races and classes in mind. Given all the above, then what do we do when we deal with something which isn't a character class or race? I'd use the PH rules, as modified by the MM rules, like the Rake description. I'd consider the "grappling dire ape" example in the old 3e FAQ (have you read that lately?). In the Living Greyhawk campaign, I'm also constrained to follow the rules in the Main 3.5e FAQ. And I'd ignore the error-filled Rules of the Game articles.
OrbitalB 03-13-05, 12:14 PM	An unarmed strike uses your fists. Your fists are natural weapons.Source? Oh for pete's sake, not this again. How about this particular discussion is moved to another thread, as not to highjack this thread, where it can be summarily ignored.
TrustTymora 03-13-05, 06:55 PM	I'd use the PH rules, as modified by the MM rules, like the Rake description. I'd consider the "grappling dire ape" example in the old 3e FAQ (have you read that lately?). In the Living Greyhawk campaign, I'm also constrained to follow the rules in the Main 3.5e FAQ. And I'd ignore the error-filled Rules of the Game articles. Of course you don't like it. I definitely wouldn't ignore article especially if you want to have your monsters make sense while grappling. TT