Full attack and Improved Grapple

[Darklone]

Great approach, Darklone - let the creatures be slaves to the rules, with no strategy - just follow a limiting, ambiguous sentence.

Reaper, wanna Houserule?

That sentence is in the rules and it makes sense... why whining about it?

 

[Kemrain]

Order of attacks...

Order of attacks is a sticky situation. It doesn't make sense that if I have a magicked up weapon in my offhand, with which I make attacks at a higher bonus than my onhand, I should suddenly switch handedness and fight hitting with the off first? Eeh, I don't like that idea. However, if you can flip flop everything around, you could attack from lowest to highest, or sideways, or in the most convienient way for you at the moment. Not sure I like that way, either.

I don't have a book on me, or the SRD readily at hand (I'm at work, doing not-work.) so can any of you tell me I'm wrong about these ideas I have floating in my head?

- Kemrain the Confused

 

[FrankTrollman]

Caliban, there's a period in between "Some of these actions take the place of an attack..." and "If your base attack attack bonus allows you multiple attacks..." That means that both of them are modifiers of the main point of the paragraph - "When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions."

Those following actions include casting spells - and they obviously didn't mean for people to cast spells faster when people were wrestling them. Furthermore, that list includes Natural Attacks - which would limit most creatures to only one of them. However, they also obviously didn't mean to shut off a Lion's Rake attacks (as they list that as a plausible grappling goal) - so the statement is clearly erroneous (contradicting both the spellcasting doctrine of the game and the Rake ability).

That's why it's being ignored - the rest of the rules contradict that passage - and by the primary sources rule override it.

-Frank

 

[youspoonybard]

...And that's why things that you can do multiple times, like "Attack your Opponent", "Damage Your Opponent", "Escape from Grapple", "Pin Your Opponent", "Break Another's Pin" and "Use Opponent's Weapon" specifically say that you use them in place of making an attack.

To interpret the "these" in the line following the "Some of these actions take the place of an attack..." line as not referring to these actions, but instead to the whole list of commands you can do, is, quite simply, ridiculous.

Natural weapons have special rules when grappling. Only in a grapple can you use the same natural weapon twice, using the "Attack Your Opponent" option twice. All of these attacks don't require an opposed grapple check, but instead have to hit AC, and take a -4 penalty.

 

[Dwarmaj]

Hmm, why oh why did they make grappling so confusing.

The 3.0FAQ says that the number of grapple checks is based on your BAB. Does this include all of the available options available during the grapple, or just "Damage Your Opponant"?

Can a Monk use Flurry of Blows during a grapple? Or, are they limited to 3 grapple checks because of their BAB?

If you're using the "Attack Your Opponent" option, then you're making normal melee attacks against their AC at -4. Correct?

If you're using the "Damage Your Opponant" option, then their AC is irrrelevant and the only modifiers allowed are BAB+Str Mod+ Special Size Mod. Correct?

 

[youspoonybard]

All of the ones I listed, that are made "in place of an attack".

I don't know if Monks can Flurry.

Yes, and yes to your last 2. Attack your opponent is a normal attack with a light weapon at -4. Damage your opponent is an opposed grapple check to deal unarmed strike damage. Don't forget to add in modifiers (like Improved Grapple) besides the BAB + STR + SIZE.

 

[Caliban]

Caliban, there's a period in between "Some of these actions take the place of an attack..." and "If your base attack attack bonus allows you multiple attacks..." That means that both of them are modifiers of the main point of the paragraph - "When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions."

So? That doesn't change anything I said. Some of the actions take the place of an attack, not any of the actions. Spells are not part of the "some actions" that can take the place of an attack.

Those following actions include casting spells - and they obviously didn't mean for people to cast spells faster when people were wrestling them.

Obviously, since they never say they can be. Read the section on casting spells in a grapple. It never says it can be done in place of an attack, and it does say it' s a standard action. Spells can't be used in place of an attack in a grapple.

Furthermore, that list includes Natural Attacks - which would limit most creatures to only one of them. However, they also obviously didn't mean to shut off a Lion's Rake attacks (as they list that as a plausible grappling goal) - so the statement is clearly erroneous (contradicting both the spellcasting doctrine of the game and the Rake ability).

[/b]
Wrong again. The Rake ability is not a natural attack, it's a special ability that triggers when the lion establishes a hold. It's not affected in any way by the grapple rules, because the ability description overrides the normal grapple rules. It's not uncommon for special abilities to override some of the normal rules of the game.

That's why it's being ignored - the rest of the rules contradict that passage - and by the primary sources rule override it.

-Frank

None of the rules contradict the grapple rules, and since the updated grapple rules are in the PHB, they ARE the primary source.

Try going over it until you understand it instead of just ignoring it. You learn more that way.

 

[Piratecat]

I've had it, folks.

I don't give a damn about whether you agree with someone's rules interpretation or not. You will not insult them if you want to post here.

Ketjak, I am talking to you.
Reapersaurus, I am talking to you.
Darklone, I am talking to you.
And you know, I think Frank's being a heck of a lot more polite than I would be in his shoes.

Honestly, you people are acting like school children instead of the intelligent adults I know you to be. If you don't like someone then Ignore them (by clicking on their profile), or just don't read their posts. But one more stream of unprovoked rudeness like I've been seeing and there's going to be some temporary vacations. The moderators here shouldn't have to micro-manage threads and they shouldn't have to break up petty bickering, because we expect people to be polite and behave like they're guests in Morrus' home. Please keep that in mind.

And Frank, if people are being rude, please click on the "report this post" link right above the "profile" button on every post.

If anyone has a problem with this, please email me - but I expect you to discuss rules without resorting to personal insults, or walk away from the keyboard for a while and give yourself a break.

 

[Snipehunt]

As I read the text:

1> You can attack with each of your natural weapons, at a -4 penalty.

2> You get to make one grapple check per BAB granted attack.

3> These grapple checks can be made to pin or cause unarmed damage.

4> These grapple checks are in addition to the natural weapon attacks.

5> The implication in the rules that you can replace the grapple checks with additional natural weapon attacks or spellcasting is erroneous.

1 is no if I understand you, 2 and 3 is yes, 4 is no, 5 is partially no if I understand you.

Here's the text:

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). If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses.

The rules then lists the things you can do, and say whether they the action is "an attack" or not.

For attacking with natural weapons, the rules say you can attack w/ iterative attacks at -4. "Attacking" and "doing damage" are both actions that are "attacks" and so use up grapple checks, which are nothing more than iterative attacks. So, no implication that you can take all the iterative grapple checks you have to do damage, and then attack with natural, etc. weapons.

You can attack w/ natural weapons, but not with the normal claw/claw/bite/slam/dice/chop/etc. My reading is, you get iterative attacks, only, for use as grapple checks to damage or as a natural weapon attack.

There is no implication that a spell can be cast instead of each grapple check. The "Cast a spell" and "Activate an item" actions do not state that they are attacks. These are not the "ome of these actions" that are modified by the second and third sentences, but are standard actions addressed by the parenthetical.

 

[Ketjak]

I've had it, folks.

I don't give a damn about whether you agree with someone's rules interpretation or not. You will not insult them if you want to post here.

Ketjak, I am talking to you.
Reapersaurus, I am talking to you.
Darklone, I am talking to you.
And you know, I think Frank's being a heck of a lot more polite than I would be in his shoes.

Honestly, you people are acting like school children instead of the intelligent adults I know you to be. If you don't like someone then Ignore them (by clicking on their profile), or just don't read their posts. But one more stream of unprovoked rudeness like I've been seeing and there's going to be some temporary vacations. The moderators here shouldn't have to micro-manage threads and they shouldn't have to break up petty bickering, because we expect people to be polite and behave like they're guests in Morrus' home. Please keep that in mind.

And Frank, if people are being rude, please click on the "report this post" link right above the "profile" button on every post.

If anyone has a problem with this, please email me - but I expect you to discuss rules without resorting to personal insults, or walk away from the keyboard for a while and give yourself a break.

Noted, and thanks! A thwack on the side of the head is always helpful.

Lest other "rudeness" infractions go unreported, I have gone ahead and flagged some posts in another thread for your attention that went unnoted. In both cases the poster insulted other posters during an otherwise polite conversation.