Animals and Grappling [Archive] - Wizards Community

Animals and Grappling [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
mrbutler
02-13-08, 01:16 PM I've got a character that has an effective Druid level of 10 for animal companions. He's got an Ape that recently level up and gained access to a new feat as it gained over 6 HD. Can that Ape take the feat Improved Grapple? He doesn't technically have the feat Improved Unarmed strike but I think I read somewhere (Rules Compendium) that animals with natural attacks are treated as having this.

If the Ape can qualify for the feat when he has someone grappled can he make opposed grapple checks to deal his normal damage from his claw attack? Or is it just unarmed damage of 1d4 (large creature)+ STR mod? Under rake in the MM it says a creature with natural weapons can only use 1 such weapon in a grapple. So that means he can only use his claws and not the bite?

I appreciate any help on these questions and would like to know where in the rules it says anything to help clarify these questions. I'm hoping 4E makes grapple alot more simplified as they claim it will. :-)
mvincent
02-13-08, 01:39 PM Can that Ape take the feat Improved Grapple? He doesn't technically have the feat Improved Unarmed strike but I think I read somewhere (Rules Compendium) that animals with natural attacks are treated as having this.I don't have the RC in front of me, but other creatures (Barbed Devil, Bebilith), have obtained improved grapple without the prerequisite, and the option is supported by Monsterforge, so it seems good to me.

can he make opposed grapple checks to deal his normal damage from his claw attack? Or is it just unarmed damage of 1d4 (large creature)+ STR mod?The latter for opposed grapple checks.
BraveSirPatrick
02-13-08, 01:49 PM From Rules of the Game: Unarmed Attacks (Part Two)

Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weaponry

Before we move on, it's worth pointing out that a character making an unarmed attack, even with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, does not have natural weapons. Nor is a natural weapon a substitute for the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.

Edit. Unless it's different for animals.
Cartigan
02-13-08, 02:45 PM Um, why don't you use Improved Grab?
mvincent
02-13-08, 03:02 PM Um, why don't you use Improved Grab?That's a special ability rather than a feat.
Father Dale
02-13-08, 03:37 PM Agreed that 'natural attack' does not equal 'unarmed strike' nor does it imply that the creature has Improved Unarmed Strike. The differences, while subtle, are numerous.

However, the question is whether a creature that has a natural attack must first take the feat Improved Unarmed Strike to qualify for the feat Improved Grapple. While the text of the feat Improved Grapple states that you must have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, Mvincent pointed to two clear examples in the MM of creatures that do not have IUS but that have Imp Grapple. How to resolve?

The barbed devil has the Improved Grab special ability as well as Imp Grapple, and also has natural claw attacks. It does not have IUS.

The bebilith does not have Imp Grab or IUS. It has natural bite and claw attacks. It does have Imp Grapple. I'd also note that the Bebilith doesn't have 13 Dex, which is also a requirement for Imp Grapple. (Note that there is no dex prereq for IUS.)

I'm unaware of any other examples of monsters having feats that they would not otherwise qualify for.

The real question is should a creature that has a natural attack, and hence has no real need for IUS, have to take IUS in order to take Imp Grapple? Should such a creature be required to take a feat that will give no benefit in order to take Imp Grapple?

By the text, yes, the creature needs IUS. I'd maintain this for PC's who are playing races that have natural attacks...they still must take IUS to get Imp Grapple. For the DM who is advancing monsters, however, I'd think the DM has the inherent authority to determine that some monsters are meant to be good 'grapplers,' and could gain the benefit of the feat without taking the worthless IUS. This seems to be the case for the bebileth, who satisfies none of the prereqs of Imp Grapple, but has the feat nonetheless.
Cartigan
02-13-08, 04:29 PM That's a special ability rather than a feat.
Ah, that would put a damper on taking it as a feat wouldn't it.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
mrbutler 02-13-08, 01:16 PM	I've got a character that has an effective Druid level of 10 for animal companions. He's got an Ape that recently level up and gained access to a new feat as it gained over 6 HD. Can that Ape take the feat Improved Grapple? He doesn't technically have the feat Improved Unarmed strike but I think I read somewhere (Rules Compendium) that animals with natural attacks are treated as having this. If the Ape can qualify for the feat when he has someone grappled can he make opposed grapple checks to deal his normal damage from his claw attack? Or is it just unarmed damage of 1d4 (large creature)+ STR mod? Under rake in the MM it says a creature with natural weapons can only use 1 such weapon in a grapple. So that means he can only use his claws and not the bite? I appreciate any help on these questions and would like to know where in the rules it says anything to help clarify these questions. I'm hoping 4E makes grapple alot more simplified as they claim it will. :-)
mvincent 02-13-08, 01:39 PM	Can that Ape take the feat Improved Grapple? He doesn't technically have the feat Improved Unarmed strike but I think I read somewhere (Rules Compendium) that animals with natural attacks are treated as having this.I don't have the RC in front of me, but other creatures (Barbed Devil, Bebilith), have obtained improved grapple without the prerequisite, and the option is supported by Monsterforge, so it seems good to me. can he make opposed grapple checks to deal his normal damage from his claw attack? Or is it just unarmed damage of 1d4 (large creature)+ STR mod?The latter for opposed grapple checks.
BraveSirPatrick 02-13-08, 01:49 PM	From Rules of the Game: Unarmed Attacks (Part Two) Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weaponry Before we move on, it's worth pointing out that a character making an unarmed attack, even with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, does not have natural weapons. Nor is a natural weapon a substitute for the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. Edit. Unless it's different for animals.
Cartigan 02-13-08, 02:45 PM	Um, why don't you use Improved Grab?
mvincent 02-13-08, 03:02 PM	Um, why don't you use Improved Grab?That's a special ability rather than a feat.
Father Dale 02-13-08, 03:37 PM	Agreed that 'natural attack' does not equal 'unarmed strike' nor does it imply that the creature has Improved Unarmed Strike. The differences, while subtle, are numerous. However, the question is whether a creature that has a natural attack must first take the feat Improved Unarmed Strike to qualify for the feat Improved Grapple. While the text of the feat Improved Grapple states that you must have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, Mvincent pointed to two clear examples in the MM of creatures that do not have IUS but that have Imp Grapple. How to resolve? The barbed devil has the Improved Grab special ability as well as Imp Grapple, and also has natural claw attacks. It does not have IUS. The bebilith does not have Imp Grab or IUS. It has natural bite and claw attacks. It does have Imp Grapple. I'd also note that the Bebilith doesn't have 13 Dex, which is also a requirement for Imp Grapple. (Note that there is no dex prereq for IUS.) I'm unaware of any other examples of monsters having feats that they would not otherwise qualify for. The real question is should a creature that has a natural attack, and hence has no real need for IUS, have to take IUS in order to take Imp Grapple? Should such a creature be required to take a feat that will give no benefit in order to take Imp Grapple? By the text, yes, the creature needs IUS. I'd maintain this for PC's who are playing races that have natural attacks...they still must take IUS to get Imp Grapple. For the DM who is advancing monsters, however, I'd think the DM has the inherent authority to determine that some monsters are meant to be good 'grapplers,' and could gain the benefit of the feat without taking the worthless IUS. This seems to be the case for the bebileth, who satisfies none of the prereqs of Imp Grapple, but has the feat nonetheless.
Cartigan 02-13-08, 04:29 PM	That's a special ability rather than a feat. Ah, that would put a damper on taking it as a feat wouldn't it.