Constrict Damage

[Mistwell]

Ah okay I get it now I think. So basically if you are facing a creature with two attacks (let's say two claws) which also has improved grab and grapple, then it really doesn't change things much if they hold you with one claw, and do damage to you with the other claw. They don't do constrict damage (after the first attack), but they also have you held while they claw you about. But, if they want to do constrict damage, then they have to take the -20 if they want to still use their other claw.

However, this makes a big difference if the creature has 3 or more claw attacks...they hold you with one claw, and attack you with all the others...thus doing more damage than simply claw and constrict each round, and avoiding the -20 grapple check.

Does that sound about right?

 

[reapersaurus]

very helpful, as always Caliban.

Why is it SO difficult to get Wizards to officially clarify an ability that is _years_ old?
Are we too demanding, that we expect them to clear up what confusion their own rules and choice of contradictory wordings cause?

Is it us being unreasonable, or them being unprofessional/cheap?

 

[Caliban]

Ah okay I get it now I think. So basically if you are facing a creature with two attacks (let's say two claws) which also has improved grab and grapple, then it really doesn't change things much if they hold you with one claw, and do damage to you with the other claw. They don't do constrict damage (after the first attack), but they also have you held while they claw you about. But, if they want to do constrict damage, then they have to take the -20 if they want to still use their other claw.

However, this makes a big difference if the creature has 3 or more claw attacks...they hold you with one claw, and attack you with all the others...thus doing more damage than simply claw and constrict each round, and avoiding the -20 grapple check.

Does that sound about right?

That sounds about right. It get's really bad with Cthulu-esque tentacle monsters.

 

[Gyr]

Mistwell: Actually, not quite right. Creature's take the -20 if they themselves do not want to be grappled.

If they choose to let themselves in turn be grappled, then they can still use their natural attacks (only) against the victim they're grappling with, conducted as normal attacks with normal AC but do not constrict. Alternately, they can choose to make grapple checks against said victim, which bypass normal AC and DO constrict.

If the monster chooses the -20 option, then it is not considered grappled and is free to use it's natural attacks on OTHER enemies.

I get the impression from reading up on it a bit more that it is slightly weaker than proposed here from the BAB rule. It would appear a creature can only make a number of grapple attempts per round as its BAB would permit. So, once you are in a grapple with an improved grapple / contricting creature, it can only do normal damage + contrict one time per round, if its BAB is less than 6, or twice per round if 6 or greater, etc...

This is indeed what the FAQ says, but it is creates problems...look at such creatures as the Monstrous Colossal Scorpion which has improved grab and 64 HD...that's a ridiculous number of iterative grapple checks. IIRC, there has been a sage ruling somewhere that creatures can make no more grapple checks than they have natural attacks in their routines. Unfortunately, I have no reference for it

 

[Mistwell]

Mistwell: Actually, not quite right. Creature's take the -20 if they themselves do not want to be grappled.

If they choose to let themselves in turn be grappled, then they can still use their natural attacks (only) against the victim they're grappling with, conducted as normal attacks with normal AC but do not constrict. Alternately, they can choose to make grapple checks against said victim, which bypass normal AC and DO constrict.

I don't see where you get that interpretation. Could you spell it out more? As far as I can tell, once you are already in a grapple, it doesn't seem to matter who started it. I see that it says that creatures with improved grapple can USE their natural weapons in a grapple, but only in the context of making a grapple check to do damage. It doesn't seem to say anything about being free to make normal attacks while in a grapple, or override the "max grapple checks defined by BAB" rule.

 

[Gyr]

On the -20 option: MM, p. 9

The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the improved grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it suffers a -20 penalty to grapple checks, but is not considered grappled itself;

It's victim still IS considered grappled, however.

On natural weapons: PHB, p. 137 "You can attack with a light weapon while grappling." Recall that unarmed attacks count as weapons two sizes lower the creature's size...and are hence light weapons. The difference between using natural weapons and making grapple checks is: they follow the normal rules for attacks (have to hit AC). Making grapple checks depends solely on beating the opponents check...AC doesn't matter. Thus, it might be of benefit for a big and strong creature to try this method (rather than normal attacks) when dealing with something small, quick, and/or well armored. The benefit of improved grab on grappling damage: the creature can choose to deal natural weapon damage, rather than unarmed attack damage (1d3 + str subdual for a medium sized critter) after making an opposed grapple check.

Look up the Game Rule FAQ on the WotC D&D website. It spells this out quite clearly.

 

[Caliban]

On the -20 option: MM, p. 9
It's victim still IS considered grappled, however.

That only applies if they want to make grapple checks to do damge, and still make attacks with the rest of their natural weapons.

Now read the last paragraph of the Improved Grab entry.

If they choose not to make any grapple checks for damage, but merely hold you in their grasp, you are considered grappled, but they are not. They can just hold you, and still make attacks with the rest of their limbs.