All About Grappling (Part Two)

[Prism]

He's using a grapple check option to make the attack. I don't think it's prohibited.

I would say that multiple damage your opponent options are allowed but not multiple attack your opponent. . To me, although the attack your opponent is a grapple option its still the only one classed as an attack and therefore is still limited by the normal natural attack rules

For a creature with improved grab they would more than likely want to use the 'damaging' option anyway as their grapple check is probably better than the chances of hitting at -4

 

[fett527]

My head hurts now.

 

[Hypersmurf]

He's using a grapple check option to make the attack. I don't think it's prohibited.

There's no grapple check involved. It's an attack roll.

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

I would say that multiple damage your opponent options are allowed but not multiple attack your opponent. . To me, although the attack your opponent is a grapple option its still the only one classed as an attack and therefore is still limited by the normal natural attack rules

For a creature with improved grab they would more than likely want to use the 'damaging' option anyway as their grapple check is probably better than the chances of hitting at -4

.... Actually, I think I agree with this interpetation. It resolves the conflict between the grappling and natural weapon rules.

If using the "attack your opponent" option, you are attacking with a natural weapon at a -4, and can only make a single attack.

If using the "damage your opponent" option, you make iterative grapple checks, but do not do natural weapon damage unless you have Improved Grab or a similar ability (because improved grab states that you do damage equal to the damage of the natural weapon used to establish the grapple).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Heh. Deja vu.

 

[Gansk]

There are two contradicting statements -

PHB page 156: "If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks..."

MM page 312: "Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons."

I would love to ignore the MM statement, but that would allow a CR 6 Salamander to do over 12d6 damage in one round with two successful grapple checks. I am hesitant to give monsters that kind of damage potential over some ambiguous rule. That's why I don't allow the hydra to attack with all of its heads each time it gets an AoO.

So here is my revised interpretation of the rules:

The ape can use the "Attack Your Opponent" option with either the claw or bite. The claw attacks at +3, the bite at -2. If the attack hits, it does lethal damage according to the natural weapon used.

The ape can use the "Damage Your Opponent" option to make a grapple check at +12. If successful, the attack does 1d4 damage (unarmed strike damage for a large creature). However, the damage is lethal unless the ape took the grapple check at +8 instead. Also there is a strength bonus to damage that is dependent on which natural attack established the grapple in the first place. If it was the claw, then +5 damage, if it was the bite, then only +2 damage to the 1d4. The type of damage is not necessarily bludgeoning, which it would be if the ape were a human. Instead the type of damage corresponds to the natural attack that established the grapple (piercing and slashing for the claw, all types for the bite.)

The polar bear is now essentially the same as the ape in the number of attacks or grapple checks it can make (one per round). The Improved Grab ability allows the polar bear to do 1d8+8 claw damage with a successful grapple check instead of 1d4+8. The Improved Grab ability also gives the bear other options that the ape does not get (these options are in the Improved Grab description).

 

[Prism]

There are two contradicting statements -

PHB page 156: "If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks..."

MM page 312: "Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons."

I would love to ignore the MM statement

The reason that you don't have to ignore the MM statement is that grapple attempts are not attacks with a natural weapon

but that would allow a CR 6 Salamander to do over 12d6 damage in one round with two successful grapple checks. I am hesitant to give monsters that kind of damage potential over some ambiguous rule.

A Salamander can do up to 2d8+6+2d6+2d6+1+1d6+2d6+1+1d6=7d6+2d8+8 assuming it hits
with its attacks and also gets its constrict. This pretty close to the damage it can do with two grapples are round. If you don't allow the two grapples a round due to the salamanders high BAB then the salamader is actually worse off grappling than attacking normally, even without taking into account the defensive problems you have when grappling.

You get the same problem with many other creatures - a polar bear with two grapples is about right, a polar bear with just the one is too weak and worse than the normal attack routine

 

[kjenks]

This is all covered in the old 3e FAQ. See the "dire ape grappling" entry.

Skip's new article is wrong. It not only contradicts the PH and MM rules, it also contradicts his earlier ruling.

But everyone makes mistakes. They have larger implications in an official, published piece about rules. A more important question is one of quality control. Who was supposed to check Skip's RotG articles and why did he fail? And why haven't the RotG articles been corrected yet?