I started this thread up in response to a dispute that arose in the Necromancer Handbook over grappling rules in 3.5 e. Rather than clutter up the handbook with the argument, I chose to make a new thread for it so as to get all possible opinions and views to understand the ruling better, or change the current one if it’s wrong.
“But Tony, we already have an official ruling. Why bother to debate it?”
Long-winded explanation enclosed:
Show
The standard railroad gauge in the United States (the distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. This is an exceedingly odd number.
The reason the rails are spaced that way is because that's the way they built them in England, and English
Expatriates built the US Railroads.
The English built them like that because the first rail lines over there were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.
And the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing. If anyone tried to use any other spacing on a wagon, the wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in England, because that was the spacing of the wheel ruts.
Imperial Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (and England) for their legions. The roads have been used ever since. The ruts were formed by Roman war chariots, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels. Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing, which was exactly wide enough to accommodate the back ends of two warhorses.
Now to the point...
When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big white booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The engineers who designed the SRBs would have preferred to make them a bit bigger, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory in Utah to the launch site in Cape Canaveral, Florida.
The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains. The SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses' behinds.
So in short, a major design feature of what is arguably the most advanced transportation system in the world was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's ass.
The standard railroad gauge in the United States (the distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. This is an exceedingly odd number.
The reason the rails are spaced that way is because that's the way they built them in England, and English
Expatriates built the US Railroads.
The English built them like that because the first rail lines over there were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.
And the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing. If anyone tried to use any other spacing on a wagon, the wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in England, because that was the spacing of the wheel ruts.
Imperial Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (and England) for their legions. The roads have been used ever since. The ruts were formed by Roman war chariots, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels. Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing, which was exactly wide enough to accommodate the back ends of two warhorses.
Now to the point...
When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big white booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The engineers who designed the SRBs would have preferred to make them a bit bigger, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory in Utah to the launch site in Cape Canaveral, Florida.
The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains. The SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses' behinds.
So in short, a major design feature of what is arguably the most advanced transportation system in the world was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's ass.
Feel free to add any comments, thoughts, corrections, or criticisms.
It seems like you have answered all your own questions. Maybe I'm a little dense... What exactly are you trying to resolve? I have a lot of grappling knowledge and would like to help. Try starting from scratch and clearly pose your question. If you're simply spawning a debate, precisely state the two sides of the argument.
Show
The standard railroad gauge in the United States (the distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. This is an exceedingly odd number.
The reason the rails are spaced that way is because that's the way they built them in England, and English
Expatriates built the US Railroads.
The English built them like that because the first rail lines over there were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.
And the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing. If anyone tried to use any other spacing on a wagon, the wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in England, because that was the spacing of the wheel ruts.
Imperial Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (and England) for their legions. The roads have been used ever since. The ruts were formed by Roman war chariots, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels. Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing, which was exactly wide enough to accommodate the back ends of two warhorses.
Now to the point...
When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big white booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The engineers who designed the SRBs would have preferred to make them a bit bigger, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory in Utah to the launch site in Cape Canaveral, Florida.
The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains. The SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses' behinds.
So in short, a major design feature of what is arguably the most advanced transportation system in the world was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's ass.
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp
Yes I'm well aware of the historical accuracy of the story ;)
However I also feel it should be treated like a fable, and like all fables it's a story, with some basis in fact, not told to historically educate someone, but to illustrate sound advice. The advice in this case being that if no one questions things, nothing will ever change, for better or for worse.
The main purpose of the thread was that the official ruling from WotC is that "If a creature attempts to grapple something from outside it's threatened area, it does not provoke an attack of opportunity."
I believe that is wrong and against the original author's intent.
The grappling rules in the PHB state that "You provoke an AoO from the target you are attempting to grapple."
At no point does reach or threaten enter into it. Nor does it say anything about provoking from everyone around you that threatens you.
That's why I posted the threat here and not in the monster forum because it's not just about monsters it's about grappling in general.
What's listed above is excerpts from what was already discussed in the previous thread.
Yes The grappling rules in the PHB state that "You provoke an AoO from the target you are attempting to grapple."
At no point does reach or threaten enter into it.
You can't attack something you can't reach. Reach doesn't consider striking limbs, as there are no rules for that in D&D. Combat, hit points, and damage are all abstract. If you can't reach something, you can't hit it. Period.
Nor does it say anything about provoking from everyone around you that threatens you.
It does.
Step 4
Maintain Grapple. To maintain the grapple for later rounds, you must move into the target’s space. (This movement is free and doesn’t count as part of your movement in the round.)
Moving, as normal, provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents, but not from your target.
A purple worm bites people because it's hungry and like Swallowing things Whole. It spends most of its time presumably eating things with lower AC than a fully equipped adventurer. It has exactly 1 Int, so it doesn't think too much about advanced tactics.
True, but the point is it's mechanically easier to hit a touch AC by grappling than full AC by biting first, then grappling. If the ultimate goal is to swallow then why would it do anything but what accomplishes that as easily as possible?
Tactics and planning is covered by Int, but base instinct, or the years its kind has spent learning how to eat things, is much more Wisdom based, IMO.
A giant squid doesn't get 10 grapple attempts per round, but it could grapple ten foes at once (by taking the -20 penalty on its checks) and squeeze them to death one at a time. Again, it only has 1 Int, so advanced tactics are not involved.
So... wait.
While it could grab ten people at once, it has to get them one round at a time? That makes even less sense.
And again, dragging something into the water where it can much more easily devour it isn't "Killing him quicker by drowning him" tactics, it's instinct.
but we're getting beyond the scope a little, the main argument I'm looking at here is, "If it has a better shot at straight grappling then it does with Improved Grab, why bother using it?"
The short answer I arrived at is "It doesn't, it has Improved Grab so it can succeed at grappling by being able to attempt it without provoking the AoO. Thus the official ruling is incorrect because these creatures still provoke, but only from their target, even with their huge reach."
Also, these creatures usually have the option of conducting the grapple at -20, instead of moving into their target's space. They could avoid the AoOs from other threatening creatures by doing that. And of course, due to their huge reach the squid frequently won't even be threatened when it initiates a grapple, and so won't take attacks of opportunity even if it does move into the target's space.
And seriously... there is an official answer. Why are you still "arguing" this? You can play however you want. We don't give a crap. And it's not like you can change the official rules. So... what is the point of this thread again?
The written rules conflict. Grappling rules state you provoke. Reach rules say you don't. Which one do you use?! You have to make a little DM rule 0. Make an educated decision.
Having reach more than your opponent is a big tactical advantage. Big enough to warrant LA. Big enough that if a creature with a smaller reach attempts to approach you within its own reach will provoke an AoO from you. That's pretty powerful. Translating this advantage into grappling mechanics means that the creature with more reach should have the upper hand. The upper hand, IMO, is that an AoO is not provoked by the creature with less reach.
That might conflict with the grappling rules, but it goes along with the reach rules. And, it makes logical sense, both mechanically and realistically.
PhaedrusXY's posts are the official position though, and the one that has to be taken on this board (unless you are posting a build and note this as a house rule for the game). There's no real argument about that.
Step 4
Maintain Grapple. To maintain the grapple for later rounds, you must move into the target’s space. (This movement is free and doesn’t count as part of your movement in the round.)
Ah ha. Thank you Phaedrus.
Much of my confusions stems apparently from my poor observation of the rules.
And seriously... there is an official answer. Why are you still "arguing" this? You can play however you want. We don't give a crap. And it's not like you can change the official rules. So... what is the point of this thread again?
...
Whenever someone tells you, “We’ve always done it that way” ...question it.
Pretty much because I'm always operating under the assumption that I know and understand the "official" rulings, so anything I post on these boards is with that in mind. Rather than mislead someone else (as is what happened in the Necromancer thread), I'd rather correct myself or correct the "official" ruling.
Translating this advantage into grappling mechanics means that the creature with more reach should have the upper hand.
I would have thought that was accounted for in the massive bonuses to grapple checks you get for size modifiers. I mean, if by virtue of being large they also get to circumvent the standard grappling rules then doesn't that make the Improved Grapple/Grab feats kind of pointless?
But even so, I'm aware that all combat is abstract, but it is still supposed to reflect actual situations that might possibly occur... if one were to fight giant scaled reptiles for a living of course.
And realistically, if someone wants to grapple you (by the D&D definition of grappling), they're somehow going to have to reach you. The first thing you roll is your melee touch attack which implies, well, touching. I was always under the impression the attack of opportunity is drawn when said hand/claw/tentacle/jaw enters your personal space. If you're attack of opportunity is provoked before that happens how are you aware they're going to be grappling you in the first place?
Rather than hash that out I erred on the side of logic which was, "if that big meaty appendage is coming for me, I'm going to poke it and make it back off."
I mean, if by virtue of being large they also get to circumvent the standard grappling rules then doesn't that make the Improved Grapple/Grab feats kind of pointless?
Unfortunately, the authors did not properly address opponents with reach and different sizes when making the grappling rules. Incorrectly assuming all PCs are medium, Improved Grapple and Grab make perfect sense. Also, that +4 is rather handy. Using a melee attack to start a grapple is also handy.
I was always under the impression the attack of opportunity is drawn when said hand/claw/tentacle/jaw enters your personal space.
Incorrect. As previously stated, you don't attack limbs in D&D. Your target must be within reach in order for you to be able to attack it. A limb in reach is not the same as the creature being in reach. There's a little logic sacrificed there for the sake of balanced game mechanics. There is plenty of logic sacrificed in the RAW; this case is minimal, comparatively.
You can never make an AoO against someone you don't threaten. When a really big creature grapples you from outside your reach, no AoO occurs. If you want to houserule it, fine, but the rules are pretty darn clear on this subject. Heck, if you allowed such AoOs something from 40' away could try to grapple you, you'd hit them for it with your 5' reach, and the grapple would never occur due to it being hit. Now you've just smacked something 40' away.
So no, you don't get to make an AoO on something from outside your reach. You want to house rule otherwise? Go for it. But them's the rules.
JaronK
So... wait.
While it could grab ten people at once, it has to get them one round at a time? That makes even less sense.
And again, dragging something into the water where it can much more easily devour it isn't "Killing him quicker by drowning him" tactics, it's instinct.
but we're getting beyond the scope a little, the main argument I'm looking at here is, "If it has a better shot at straight grappling then it does with Improved Grab, why bother using it?"
The short answer I arrived at is "It doesn't, it has Improved Grab so it can succeed at grappling by being able to attempt it without provoking the AoO. Thus the official ruling is incorrect because these creatures still provoke, but only from their target, even with their huge reach."
Actually, the squid, like any other creature with multiple limbs, falls under the multiweapon attack when adjudicating off-hand grapple attempts. Because of the rules for multiweapon fighting following the rules for two-weapon fighting, we gain the following bonuses:
To hit: +9 BAB +8 Str -2 Size -4 Main hand (light weapon in off-hand)= +11
+9 BAB +8 Str -2 Size -8 Off-hand (light weapons) = +7
Multi-weapon Grapple Attempts:
Main hand: +9 BAB +8 Str +8 Size +4 Racial -4 Main Hand (Light weapon in off-hand) = +25
Off-hand: +9 BAB +8 Str +8 Size +4 Racial -8 Off-hand (light weapons) = +21
So, the giant squid could make 11 grapple attempts per round at the following bonuses:
Touch attacks:
Main hand: To hit bonus (Grapple bonus): +11/+6 (+25/+20)
Off-hand: To hit bonus (Grapple bonus): +7/+7/+7/+7/+7/+7/+7/+7/+7 (+21/+21/+21/+21/+21/+21/+21/+21/+21)
That is all without improved grab. Improved grab simply makes it easier for the giant squid to grapple. MUCH MUCH easier. Now, granted, it must strike the target's full AC, and not touch AC, but it uses its natural attack modifier to hit, always uses its highest grapple modifier, and has a chance to deal damage both on the tentacle attack itself, and then additional damage on a successful grapple, all in the same round!!! With Constrict, this becomes even more nasty! Total damage from the squid (grapple only, assuming success):
Grapple damage + constrict damage (1d6+8 nonlethal + 1d6+8 lethal).
Total damage from the squid (successful normal attack, followed by improved grab, followed by a successful grapple)
Tentacle damage + grapple damage + constrict damage (1d6+8 lethal + 1d6+8 nonlethal + 1d6+8 lethal) It has just doubled its lethal damage for the attack. Additionally, it can use multiple limbs for grappling the opponent. Each limb that it decides to add to the grapple automatically succeeds on the touch attack to start the grapple. Now, it is actually easier to add limbs specifically for grappling rather than making tentacle attacks (at a -4 to attacking with natural weapons in a grapple). The touch attack automatically succeeds, and it is just a grapple check to deal damage, success dealing both the nonlethal grapple damage and the lethal constrict damage. It is up to the DM how many limbs the squid could add for this purpose, but technically, a creature can be grappled by only two Huge creatures (4 Large, 8 Medium or Small, 16 Tiny, etc.), so a typical limit may be 2, although it is really up to the DM to decide.
Now, if you were to improve the squid by 6 hit dice, granting it two more feats, you could give it Multi-weapon Fighting and Improved Multi-weapon Fighting (but for ease of numbers, let's instead say that a group of storm giants trains giant squids from birth, altering their feats, removing toughnessx2 and instead granting them multi-weapon fighting and improved multi-weapon fighting). Now, should they decide to use nothing but grapple attacks, their attacks would be as follows:
To-hit (main hand and off-hand): +9 BAB +8 Str -2 Size -2 Multi-weapon Fighting (off-hand light): +13/+8
Grapple: +9 BAB +8 Str +8 Size +4 Racial -2 Multi-weapon Fighting: +27/+22
Total attacks:
To hit (grapple): +13/+13/+13/+13/+13/+13/+13/+13/+13/+13/+8/+8/+8/+8/+8/+8/+8/+8/+8/+8 (+27/+27/+27/+27/+27/+27/+27/+27/+27/+27/+22/+22/+22/+22/+22/+22/+22/+22/+22/+22).
Drop Alertness to give it Improved Unarmed Strike, and now it is dealing lethal damage with its grapple attempts. With that array of attacks, pretty much anything it sees is going to get grappled. If it happens to be a storm giant druid's animal companion (let's say that is a standard animal companion for a 1st level storm giant druid, whether it is or not, again for simplicity of numbers), by 6th level druid, the squid will have an additional 4 HD, granting it an additional feat. Make that feat Improved Grapple, and you have a nigh unstoppable underwater grappling machine. Have the storm giant equip it with a monk's belt, and now its grapple damage deals 3d6+9 lethal, plus 1d6+9 constriction. The extra to-hit from a high BAB and extra strength nets the squid a +4 to all attacks and an additional attack (bringing the total to 21 grapple attempts) at a +7. The grapples all improved by +8 from these increases, as well.
That seems quite a bit better than the Improved Grap option, but it requires a mind dedicated to training the squid for optimal combat techniques. Obviously, once it snags Improved Grapple, it doesn't need to worry about provoking AoOs from grappling anyway, but you get the idea.
Another benefit from Improved Grab:
SRD[/url]"]When a creature gets a hold after an improved grab attack, it pulls the opponent into its space. This act does not provoke attacks of opportunity. It can even move (possibly carrying away the opponent), provided it can drag the opponent’s weight.
This is another benefit from Improved Grab. Not only does the squid get to attack with a regular natural attack, but it doesn't move into the square of its opponent. Instead, it drags its opponent into it's square provoking attacks of opportunity from enemies within the threatened area (depending on the reading, one might say that the Improved Grab says "this act does not provoke attacks of opportunity", but it says nothing about the movement of the opponent. The act itself of dragging doesn't provoke attacks against it, but it is unclear if attacks are provoked against its moving target)! So the squid using Improved Grab will never provoke attacks of opportunity. The squid above (even the one making 20 unarmed strikes) will provoke from moving into his opponents square by avoiding the use of Improved Grab... now it depends on how many enemies are within the path that might gain AoOs from the squid's movement to determine what the optimal course of action would be. Likely the Storm Giant druid can direct this, though, as the situation requires ;).
Edit: Aha! Something we missed/forgot before.
When a creature gets a hold after an improved grab attack, it pulls the opponent into its space. This act does not provoke attacks of opportunity. It can even move (possibly carrying away the opponent), provided it can drag the opponent’s weight.
So the squid would not draw Attacks of Opportunity for initiating a grapple, from anyone. And it could drag the opponent into the water with it.
I also remember something about monsters with Improved Grab and/or Constrict being able to attack with all their limbs during a grapple. Or was that rake?...
Edit2: It's rake.
Rake
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.
A monster with the rake ability must begin its turn grappling to use its rake—it can’t begin a grapple and rake in the same turn.
tos_shai_hulud: The squid is using natural weapons. The tentacles are all it's "main" natural weapons, not secondary. It doesn't get iteratives with them, and it uses its full BAB with them. You don't use multiweapon fighting rules at all, unless it's wielding greatswords with each tentacle or something weird. Those only apply to attacks with manufactured weapons. Also, you can't make TWF or MWF attacks while in a grapple. So pretty much everything in your post is wrong.
Unfortunately, you are wrong. Unarmed strikes are both natural weapons AND manufactured weapons. If you would like, I will provide the proper references from the SRD. Grappling, without Improved Grab, falls under a character's normal BAB rules, not natural attack rules. So everything in my post was accurate. If you don't believe me, check the FAQ and Rules of the Game articles about grappling.
Also, my post does indeed mention that ability from Improved Grab about dragging your opponent into your square, although since my post was so long, I can see how you would miss it.
Incorrect. As previously stated, you don't attack limbs in D&D. Your target must be within reach in order for you to be able to attack it. A limb in reach is not the same as the creature being in reach. There's a little logic sacrificed there for the sake of balanced game mechanics. There is plenty of logic sacrificed in the RAW; this case is minimal, comparatively.
Agreed. Its true you don't attack limbs in D&D. But they do tend to point toward that when grappling without Improved Grapple/Grab. If you don't have those you provoke attacks of opportunity with the grab. If the attack hits you fail to initiate the grab, which makes sense. Personally if an animal tried to grab me and I had a sword I'd hit their paw/mouth/etc.
To me that sounds like if big scary monster (that is not a proficient grabber) trys to grab me, I hit it's outstretched limb with my rather large and sharp sword. It retracts its limb from the source of pain. Now if it were a proficient grabber it would be able to grab me without me having the option of hitting the outstretched limb - as an experienced grappler would.
No I'm not trying to override any rules. I understand everything that has been said but personally I think it would come down to a DM's ruling, either:
You cant hit something outside your threat range, so no Attack of Opportunity.
An inexperienced grappler (without Improved Grab/Grapple) provokes an Attack of Opportunity if they try to grab you, so it doesn't matter if it's outside your threat range.
The grappling rules are very strange (and as a Jiu Jitsu practitioner I do struggle with them sometimes).
If a creature is created without Improved Grab/Grapple, when it probably should have it, as a DM I would simply give it that Feat.
Unfortunately, you are wrong. Unarmed strikes are both natural weapons AND manufactured weapons.
That's a MONK's Improved Unarmed Strike. That doesn't include any other natural weapons.
Grappling, without Improved Grab, falls under a character's normal BAB rules, not natural attack rules.
You can't attack with more than one natural weapon in a grapple, unless you have Rake. This is stated in the section I quoted above for the Rake rules.
You can't attack with two weapons during a grapple. This is stated in the grapple rules.
That's a MONK's Improved Unarmed Strike. That doesn't include any other natural weapons. You can't attack with more than one natural weapon in a grapple, unless you have Rake. This is stated in the section I quoted above for the Rake rules.
You can't attack with two weapons during a grapple. This is stated in the grapple rules.
You can't use natural attacks to grapple:
Rules of the Game[/url]"]Even if a creature has natural weaponry, it doesn’t use those natural weapons as part of this action. It must use the “Attack Your Opponent” action (described above) to do so.
That means that you are using the creature's unarmed strike to grapple, not its natural weapons.
Rules of the Game[/url]"]In general, monsters follow the same rules as PCs when conducting a grapple.
Monsters in a grapple may use their natural weapons, but only by using the “Attack Your Opponent” option (which applies a –4 penalty on the attack roll). When using the “Damage Your Opponent” option, the creature deals unarmed strike damage appropriate to its size (see Part 2 of this column)
Some options available while grappling (such as “Damage Your Opponent” and “Pin Your Opponent”) state that they may be used in place of an attack. The monster gets as many “attacks” in a full attack action as it would get if it were attacking with a weapon, based on its base attack bonus: +1 to +5, one attack; +6 to +10, two attacks; +11 to +15, three attacks, and +16 and up, four attacks. Each one after the first would suffer a cumulative –5 penalty on the roll (just like a character with a high BAB making multiple weapon attacks).
For example, a dire tiger (BAB +12) grappling a PC would be allowed three separate attempts to damage its opponent, escape from the grapple, or pin its opponent; the second would take a –5 penalty on the grapple check, while the third would take a –10 penalty.
While I didn't take the time to find the rules for two-weapon fighting, you CAN use grapple attempts for each attack during two-weapon fighting attacks (or multi-weapon fighting). Since the squid has 10 limbs, it can make 10 unarmed strikes. Now, the rules say 3 or more hands, so I can see you saying that a tentacle is not a hand. But, a tentacle can be used in much the same way as a hand. RAW, it may fail. RAI, seems perfectly legit.
While I didn't take the time to find the rules for two-weapon fighting, you CAN use grapple attempts for each attack during two-weapon fighting attacks (or multi-weapon fighting).
No you can't. To attack with a weapon, you'd use the "Attack your opponent" rule.
From the grappling section of the Combat rules in the SRD:
Attack Your Opponent
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.
You can’t attack with two weapons while grappling, even if both are light weapons.
And the rake special attack says this:
Normally, a monster can attack with only one of its natural weapons while grappling
No you can't. To attack with a weapon, you'd use the "Attack your opponent" rule.
From the grappling section of the Combat rules in the SRD: And the rake special attack says this:
You know you are arguing over different things right? You're talking about attacking once inside a grapple. He is talking about initiating a grapple.
You'd think one or both of you would notice this based on the sections of the rules you are seeing one another quote.
You know you are arguing over different things right? You're talking about attacking once inside a grapple. He is talking about initiating a grapple.
You'd think one or both of you would notice this based on the sections of the rules you are seeing one another quote.
Lol, I would have noticed after that last bit he quoted. I had no idea he was talking about attacks once inside a grapple, as I had already posted to hit and grapple modifiers for initiating grapples. That was the entirety of my incredibly long post which he said was wrong. So, as already stated, my post was correct. The rules that PhaedrusXY is referring to have nothing to do with the post that I made.
Lol, I would have noticed after that last bit he quoted. I had no idea he was talking about attacks once inside a grapple, as I had already posted to hit and grapple modifiers for initiating grapples. That was the entirety of my incredibly long post which he said was wrong. So, as already stated, my post was correct. The rules that PhaedrusXY is referring to have nothing to do with the post that I made.
No, you're actually still wrong. What PhaedrusXY was referring to is that you cannot use grapple checks in place of the extra attacks you get with 2 weapon fighting. You can get the extra attacks if you simply attack during a grapple. But if you use grapple checks, you don't get extra ones.
No, you're actually still wrong. What PhaedrusXY was referring to is that you cannot use grapple checks in place of the extra attacks you get with 2 weapon fighting. You can get the extra attacks if you simply attack during a grapple. But if you use grapple checks, you don't get extra ones.
You still can't get the extra attacks, even if you use the "Attack Your Opponent" option instead of "Damage your Opponent". The section I quoted which says you can't attack with two weapons while in a grapple is from the "Attack Your Opponent" section, which is when you just make an attack roll with a -4, not use a grapple check.
So... wait.
While it could grab ten people at once, it has to get them one round at a time? That makes even less sense.
Yes, I agree that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that it can hold ten foes, but only squeeze one or two per round. But that's the way it works.
You still can't get the extra attacks, even if you use the "Attack Your Opponent" option instead of "Damage your Opponent". The section I quoted which says you can't attack with two weapons while in a grapple is from the "Attack Your Opponent" section, which is when you just make an attack roll with a -4, not use a grapple check.
You're right again. An oversight on my part. I guess 2 weapon fighting and grappling never really mix, unless you have that feat that allows you to start a grapple with a weapon (and that's only for initiating).
You're right again. An oversight on my part. I guess 2 weapon fighting and grappling never really mix, unless you have that feat that allows you to start a grapple with a weapon (and that's only for initiating).
There is a feat that lets you attack with both weapons while grappling I think, but I forget what it is. Knife-fighter, maybe?
Edit: Eh, nope. That just gets rid of the -4 penalty and a couple of other things.
We don't give a crap.
i do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonymitsu View Post
So... wait.
While it could grab ten people at once, it has to get them one round at a time? That makes even less sense.
Yes, I agree that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that it can hold ten foes, but only squeeze one or two per round. But that's the way it works.
so why haven't the errated it by now???
i mean, if they made the grapple rules really complicated and put alot of effort into it, (witch they did) they why are there so many bugs? . also if a giant squid without improved grab starts a grapple, it would be moved into the grappled opponents square? a what 2 ton giant squid is pulled into a 2 hundred pound adventurer's square? really???i do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonymitsu View Post
so why haven't the errated it by now???
It's not pulled into - it moves into to continue the grapple. A instinctual non-trained grapller would do that.
so why haven't the errated it by now???
That's an excellent question. I think the perfect grapple system has yet to be made. Certainly 4E and Pathfinder have made grappling worse, not better (IMO).
also if a giant squid without improved grab starts a grapple, it would be moved into the grappled opponents square? a what 2 ton giant squid is pulled into a 2 hundred pound adventurer's square?
There's no such thing as a giant squid without the Improved Grab special attack (well, maybe there's a limbless giant squid flopping around the ocean somewhere...). The Improved Grab special attack means that targets are moved towards the squid rather than the squid moving towards the targets.
There's no such thing as a giant squid without the Improved Grab special attack (well, maybe there's a limbless giant squid flopping around the ocean somewhere...). The Improved Grab special attack means that targets are moved towards the squid rather than the squid moving towards the targets.
Hence why I stated: If a creature is created without Improved Grab/Grapple, when it probably should have it, as a DM I would simply give it that Feat.
RAI seems pretty clear that a character can use his two-weapon fighting to increase the number of grapple checks he makes in a round, but he may not fight with two weapons. He has grapple and one weapon or all grapple.