Attacking in Grapple and Improved Grab [Archive] - Wizards Community

Attacking in Grapple and Improved Grab [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
ClementWillowbreaker
03-31-07, 11:42 PM I've been reading over grappling, and came across a couple disturbing sections that made me question if my previous interpretations where just assumptions. First issue- attacking your opponent in a grapple (versus AC)
When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions. Some of these actions take the place of an attack (rather than being a standard action or a move action)...You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling. You take a -4 penalty on such attacks.
All the other options specify that they take a specific action, or state they are made in place of an attack. This one doesn't quite. Just enough to imply, but not enough to make it obvious. So the question is- can you attack multiple times with a light weapon as your BAB allows, or is that a standard action? I don't even want to bring up that whole FAQ-multiple-natural-weapons-while-grappling thing.

Second issue...how much damage does a creature with Improved Grab deal when damaging an opponent?
A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature’s descriptive text).
My original idea (based on the balance and sensibility) says that Improved Grab is all you need to improve your damage from unarmed-strike to natural-weapon damage. But reading the above paragraph, I am troubled. "Hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has constrict." That seems to say that Improved Grab doesn't improve your damage at all by itself. The following sentence maintains the ambiguity. "does not constrict"- does that mean "does not have the ability to constrict" or "choses not to at the moment"?

The right answer seems self-evident, but the actual phrasing is tripping me up. I know which way is sensible and how it should be, but I want to know what the text actually says.
Shadowhowler
04-01-07, 01:12 AM Hm.

Well, as for the first, I can answer. You can attack with unarmed, natural or light weapons with a -4 as many times as your attack routine would allow. So, basicly your BAB, but say you were a TWF with two daggers, you could use that too.

The second, I can't say. Improved grab is a MM deal, and I have not messed with that much yet.
Tsuul
04-01-07, 10:09 AM With improved grab the order of damage is slightly changed. You deal damage then grapple.
Constrict damage is "extra" damage (like sneak attack), natural weapon damage is the "base".
Fallenangel359
04-01-07, 10:16 AM That makes me wonder... how does spiked armor even work in a grapple?
ClementWillowbreaker
04-01-07, 12:42 PM With improved grab the order of damage is slightly changed. You deal damage then grapple.
Not my question at all. We all know how to start a grapple with Improved Grab. What damage are you dealing with subsequent "damage your opponent" actions within the grapple without the Constrict ability?

So, basicly your BAB, but say you were a TWF with two daggers, you could use that too.
The sentence after the block I quoted explicitly states you can't.
Nom
04-01-07, 05:12 PM The "hold doesn't deal extra damage" line refers to step 3 in the normal grapple rules. Normally, the act of gaining a hold deals damage. In IG, you already did the damage as part of the attack so you don't get to (immediately) do it again as part of establishing a hold.

The rest of the stuff you quoted modifies "damage your opponent" on subsequent rounds.
Shadowhowler
04-01-07, 05:25 PM The sentence after the block I quoted explicitly states you can't.

Eh? Hows that?

The dsicription of grapple in the PHB says you can attack the other guy in a grapple with light weaposn, reciving a -4 to do so. Why would you not be able to do so as many times as you have attacks? I don't recall anything saying you could not.
ClementWillowbreaker
04-01-07, 05:31 PM Oooh, that makes perfect sense Nom. I couldn't find anything else for that sentence to refer to, which carried the weirdness further on (it should really read, "if you do not have the constrict ability" just to be d20-consistent and grammatically torturous in the usual way we know how to deal with). I also hadn't noticed that you can constrict when you establish the grapple, instead of only on subsequent rounds. I think the first discussion I had about constrict had some unfortunate parallel discussion with Rake or something :rolleyes:

So it is natural weapon damage, grapple check, [constrict if you have it] when establishing the grapple. Then "damage your opponent" grapple checks for weapon damage [and constrict if you have it] in subsequent rounds.

Still no definite answer on "attack your opponent" as attack action vs standard action, though...

And Shadow, I am referring to your claim of TWFing
You can’t attack with two weapons while grappling, even if both are light weapons.
It is the next freaking sentence in both the SRD and PHB. One attack as a standard action vs multiple attacks as your BAB allows is half the reason for this thread, and you aren't helping your case by missing the TWF line.
Shadowhowler
04-01-07, 09:30 PM Hm.

Never use the SRD, and don't have my PHB in front of me, but if I fogged out on that one, my bad. I'll check soon as I am near my book again.

:confused:
Nom
04-01-07, 10:28 PM IAll the other options specify that they take a specific action, or state they are made in place of an attack. This one doesn't quite. Just enough to imply, but not enough to make it obvious. So the question is- can you attack multiple times with a light weapon as your BAB allows, or is that a standard action?Honestly, Clement, this should be a 'well duh'. Attacking doesn't need to "take the place of an attack", because it is an attack. The other options aren't technically attacks but can be take the place of attacks while in a grapple. :)
ClementWillowbreaker
04-01-07, 10:54 PM It is, "well, duh". But I have seen people say otherwise, and when looking for a reason to disagree and state that how it should be is how it is, it helps to have something to fall back on. There are attacks that are standard actions and not made in place of attacks, after all.

Like I said, this comes from splitting hairs and phrases too finely.
Nom
04-02-07, 06:54 AM Considering that every other option specifies explicitly what sort of time it requires, I'd look very sceptically at someone trying to argue that an option called attack and described as an attack ("You can make an attack ...") isn't considered an attack.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ClementWillowbreaker 03-31-07, 11:42 PM	I've been reading over grappling, and came across a couple disturbing sections that made me question if my previous interpretations where just assumptions. First issue- attacking your opponent in a grapple (versus AC) When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions. Some of these actions take the place of an attack (rather than being a standard action or a move action)...You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling. You take a -4 penalty on such attacks. All the other options specify that they take a specific action, or state they are made in place of an attack. This one doesn't quite. Just enough to imply, but not enough to make it obvious. So the question is- can you attack multiple times with a light weapon as your BAB allows, or is that a standard action? I don't even want to bring up that whole FAQ-multiple-natural-weapons-while-grappling thing. Second issue...how much damage does a creature with Improved Grab deal when damaging an opponent? A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature’s descriptive text). My original idea (based on the balance and sensibility) says that Improved Grab is all you need to improve your damage from unarmed-strike to natural-weapon damage. But reading the above paragraph, I am troubled. "Hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has constrict." That seems to say that Improved Grab doesn't improve your damage at all by itself. The following sentence maintains the ambiguity. "does not constrict"- does that mean "does not have the ability to constrict" or "choses not to at the moment"? The right answer seems self-evident, but the actual phrasing is tripping me up. I know which way is sensible and how it should be, but I want to know what the text actually says.
Shadowhowler 04-01-07, 01:12 AM	Hm. Well, as for the first, I can answer. You can attack with unarmed, natural or light weapons with a -4 as many times as your attack routine would allow. So, basicly your BAB, but say you were a TWF with two daggers, you could use that too. The second, I can't say. Improved grab is a MM deal, and I have not messed with that much yet.
Tsuul 04-01-07, 10:09 AM	With improved grab the order of damage is slightly changed. You deal damage then grapple. Constrict damage is "extra" damage (like sneak attack), natural weapon damage is the "base".
Fallenangel359 04-01-07, 10:16 AM	That makes me wonder... how does spiked armor even work in a grapple?
ClementWillowbreaker 04-01-07, 12:42 PM	With improved grab the order of damage is slightly changed. You deal damage then grapple. Not my question at all. We all know how to start a grapple with Improved Grab. What damage are you dealing with subsequent "damage your opponent" actions within the grapple without the Constrict ability? So, basicly your BAB, but say you were a TWF with two daggers, you could use that too. The sentence after the block I quoted explicitly states you can't.
Nom 04-01-07, 05:12 PM	The "hold doesn't deal extra damage" line refers to step 3 in the normal grapple rules. Normally, the act of gaining a hold deals damage. In IG, you already did the damage as part of the attack so you don't get to (immediately) do it again as part of establishing a hold. The rest of the stuff you quoted modifies "damage your opponent" on subsequent rounds.
Shadowhowler 04-01-07, 05:25 PM	The sentence after the block I quoted explicitly states you can't. Eh? Hows that? The dsicription of grapple in the PHB says you can attack the other guy in a grapple with light weaposn, reciving a -4 to do so. Why would you not be able to do so as many times as you have attacks? I don't recall anything saying you could not.
ClementWillowbreaker 04-01-07, 05:31 PM	Oooh, that makes perfect sense Nom. I couldn't find anything else for that sentence to refer to, which carried the weirdness further on (it should really read, "if you do not have the constrict ability" just to be d20-consistent and grammatically torturous in the usual way we know how to deal with). I also hadn't noticed that you can constrict when you establish the grapple, instead of only on subsequent rounds. I think the first discussion I had about constrict had some unfortunate parallel discussion with Rake or something :rolleyes: So it is natural weapon damage, grapple check, [constrict if you have it] when establishing the grapple. Then "damage your opponent" grapple checks for weapon damage [and constrict if you have it] in subsequent rounds. Still no definite answer on "attack your opponent" as attack action vs standard action, though... And Shadow, I am referring to your claim of TWFing You can’t attack with two weapons while grappling, even if both are light weapons. It is the next freaking sentence in both the SRD and PHB. One attack as a standard action vs multiple attacks as your BAB allows is half the reason for this thread, and you aren't helping your case by missing the TWF line.
Shadowhowler 04-01-07, 09:30 PM	Hm. Never use the SRD, and don't have my PHB in front of me, but if I fogged out on that one, my bad. I'll check soon as I am near my book again. :confused:
Nom 04-01-07, 10:28 PM	IAll the other options specify that they take a specific action, or state they are made in place of an attack. This one doesn't quite. Just enough to imply, but not enough to make it obvious. So the question is- can you attack multiple times with a light weapon as your BAB allows, or is that a standard action?Honestly, Clement, this should be a 'well duh'. Attacking doesn't need to "take the place of an attack", because it is an attack. The other options aren't technically attacks but can be take the place of attacks while in a grapple. :)
ClementWillowbreaker 04-01-07, 10:54 PM	It is, "well, duh". But I have seen people say otherwise, and when looking for a reason to disagree and state that how it should be is how it is, it helps to have something to fall back on. There are attacks that are standard actions and not made in place of attacks, after all. Like I said, this comes from splitting hairs and phrases too finely.
Nom 04-02-07, 06:54 AM	Considering that every other option specifies explicitly what sort of time it requires, I'd look very sceptically at someone trying to argue that an option called attack and described as an attack ("You can make an attack ...") isn't considered an attack.