Post/Author/DateTime	Post
xanadu 03-08-05, 09:18 PM	I really wished this rules of the game article was made crystal clear because grappling is so damn confusing. 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). Well, that seems to address whether a not a creature can use its entire attack routine of claw / claw / bite in a grapple. This was not clear before. But WHY in the world would you NOT want to use all three :confused: :confused: :confused: OK, let's go to the section on damaging your opponent to reveal this mystery. If a creature has natural weaponry, it deals lethal natural weapon damage with a successful opposed grapple check ...A creature with natural weaponry can choose to deal nonlethal damage in a grapple by taking a -4 penalty If I can use all my natural attacks, do regualr damage, and not take a -4 penalty, why would I not use my full attack routine? Where are these "many" cases? Does "many" mean only when I have a BAB that allows 4 iterative attacks and the constriction special ability?
Prism 03-08-05, 11:00 PM	I think what Skip is trying to say is that a creature can use its full natural attack routine in a grapple (possible instead or as well as iterative attacks but who knows!) and all of these can be grapple attempts instead of standard attacks as manuevers such as 'damage your opponent' take the place of a normal attack Its usually easier for a large creature to beat an opponents grapple check than hit its AC at -4. I think he is assuming that most creatures are better grapplers than PC's which may be a fair statement
SdEoXgY 03-08-05, 11:17 PM	First off I would highly recommend that you don't try and decided what he wrote and just simply read it. If it does not say it breaks a rule then it does not. So with that in mind. 1. "If you have multiple natural weapons, however, you can use all of them while grappling" Does it say anything about full attack routine... No, then it does not change the rule. Example; If a creature has a Bite, Claw and Tail bash then he can use any of them with "Attack your opponent" option when grappling. 2. "If a creature has natural weaponry, it deals lethal natural weapon damage with a successful opposed grapple check" Under "Damage your Opponent" it gives the damage for a medium at 1d3 (which just happens to be the standard damage for a medium unarmed attack). It also goes on to say that a Monk deals more damage on an unarmed strike. Clearly saying that the damage under "Damage your Opponent" is your Unarmed Damage The statement "it deals lethal natural weapon damage" is just the obvious extension to that rule. Is it an extension of Rule... Yes. Would I have ruled in the same way... No. Does it mean anything other then what it says... Absolutly not. As always, peace and love SdEoXgY
Colmarr 03-09-05, 01:19 AM	Bear in mind that neither of the quotes the OP refers to are in fact supported by the RAW. It wouldn't be the first time that one of Skip's articles was at odds with the rules. For a discussion of this very article, check out the discussion on the Rules forum at www-dot-andycollins-dot-net.
xanadu 03-09-05, 01:37 AM	These articles are meant to clairfy things. By saying you can use all, it should mean all :confused: . If it meant you can use one of them, then it should "can use any one" or "either claw or bite" etc. Or at least give an example. I am a dire bear. I want to eat you. My BAB is +9 and my Grapple check is +23. I can normally attack with a +19 claw / +19 claw / +13 bite routine. Lets say I use my improved grab ability. I have two choices: (1) Make a grapple check at +23 and +18 and do claw damage if I win. (2) Use only my claw as a weapon? Do I at least get an extra attack for high BAB at +19 and +14 to hit regular AC? If I'm the Dire Bear, I dont think I'd want to grapple at all especially considered I'm denied my dex to AC by all your friends...especially that rogue :rolleyes:
TrustTymora 03-09-05, 04:26 AM	Bear in mind that neither of the quotes the OP refers to are in fact supported by the RAW. Yes, you are correct. If the RAW is super imposed literally on top of the article it would prove the article to be inconsistent with some of the current text of the PHB and MM. However, these articles have to be written to shed light on what the intention of the RAW is for those that read it too literally instead of trying to interpret the spirt/intention of the rules. TT
d_nychus 03-09-05, 04:36 AM	Well, the dire bear is really not set up well for grappling against multiple opponents. If it were just facing one opponent, then grappling could be a good option, especially if the opponent has multiple attacks or other special abilities that are limited while in a grapple. However, take a creature that is VERY well set up for grappling in a group of opponents, like the marilith or the kraken, and you will see the effectiveness of grappling.
d_nychus 03-09-05, 04:38 AM	Yes, you are correct. If the RAW is super imposed literally on top of the article it would prove the article to be inconsistent with some of the current text of the PHB and MM. However, these articles have to be written to shed light on what the intention of the RAW is for those that read it too literally instead of trying to interpret the spirt/intention of the rules. TT How can one know the spirit/intention of the rules when the articles meant 'to shed light on the rules' contradicts what the RAW says?
scwolf 03-09-05, 05:05 AM	If the RAW is written in such a way that it bears little resemblence to the Rule As Intended, they need to issue errata along side the clarfication article.
TrustTymora 03-09-05, 05:32 AM	How can one know the spirit/intention of the rules when the articles meant 'to shed light on the rules' contradicts what the RAW says? It's a good question. I don't know, I guess the easiest thing is to think of a bear in a grapple. The RAW just doesn't support what I think the spirit/intention of the section was trying to do when I considered creatures with natural weapons. I then realized that it basically missed the boat with respect to this aspect so I tried to get into the spirit/intention of the section and basically came up with what Skip has outlined. To tell you the truth I even went a bit further in a few areas. TT
TrustTymora 03-09-05, 05:33 AM	If the RAW is written in such a way that it bears little resemblence to the Rule As Intended, they need to issue errata along side the clarfication article. Agree. TT