Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="&amp;quot;Jack&amp;quot; Reapersaurus" data-source="post: 1162915" data-attributes="member: 14647">I am pretty sure that what I've seen Caliban and Frank describe in this thread is NOT the way the grappling rules work.I don't have time to quote much, but basically I think thy said that a bear effectively loses their natural attacks when in a grapple, right?They only get a # of grapple checks = to their iterative BAB is what's being said, right?Quote #1: It says right in the SRD that if you're grappled, you can : &quot;Attack Your Opponent: You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against anothercharacter you are grappling. You take a –4 penalty on such attacks.&quot;Looks pretty straightforward that they can use their natural weapons in grapple, with a slight pebalty. I don't see where the problem is here.This is by far the most applicable quote in the entire rulebooks for this maneuver.Quote #2: &quot;Rake (Ex): A creature with this special attack gains extra natural attacks when it grapples its foe. Normally, a monster canattack 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.&quot;This extra description in the Rake text is not a rule regarding grapples - it is not precedent setting - in the long tradition of 3E rules, it is simply trying to (badly) clarify how this ability (Rake) is different than normal rules.I believe what they are referring to here is the rule that if a natural weapon is used to grapple someone, than it is &quot;used up&quot; - i.e. not able to be used in subsequent attacks. I forget where it details that, but I've seen it. So the Rake text is referring to a normal 2 clawed animal when it says &quot;normally, a creature can only use 1 natural weapon while grappling&quot;.If I have time/interest, I'd walk thru an example, but I thought I already did, it this or other threads of how (I am pretty sure) it works.If I'm missing something, I'm sure it'll be pointed out.</blockquote>

[QUOTE=""Jack" Reapersaurus, post: 1162915, member: 14647"] I am pretty sure that what I've seen Caliban and Frank describe in this thread is NOT the way the grappling rules work. I don't have time to quote much, but basically I think thy said that a bear effectively loses their natural attacks when in a grapple, right? They only get a # of grapple checks = to their iterative BAB is what's being said, right? Quote #1: It says right in the SRD that if you're grappled, you can : "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." Looks pretty straightforward that they can use their natural weapons in grapple, with a slight pebalty. I don't see where the problem is here. This is by far the most applicable quote in the entire rulebooks for this maneuver. Quote #2: "Rake (Ex): 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." This extra description in the Rake text is not a rule regarding grapples - it is not precedent setting - in the long tradition of 3E rules, it is simply trying to (badly) clarify how this ability (Rake) is different than normal rules. I believe what they are referring to here is the rule that if a natural weapon is used to grapple someone, than it is "used up" - i.e. not able to be used in subsequent attacks. I forget where it details that, but I've seen it. So the Rake text is referring to a normal 2 clawed animal when it says "normally, a creature can only use 1 natural weapon while grappling". If I have time/interest, I'd walk thru an example, but I thought I already did, it this or other threads of how (I am pretty sure) it works. If I'm missing something, I'm sure it'll be pointed out. [/QUOTE]

Verification