Grapple, Iterative BAB attacks and secondary natural attacks

[Cabral]

Otherwise the RAW lead to a mess of inconsistent and nonsensical results.

Too late.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Wait. A monster with, say, a single natural attack (let's take Gore as an example) cannot attempt a Trip?

Sure, he can. He need only take the full attack action without using any natural weapons. That is, he no longer applies the natural weapon rules at all. He can then make as many trips, unarmed strikes, or any other unarmed attacks he wishes based on iterative BAB.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Okay, fuel for the fire: Where does it say you can combine unarmed strike with a natural weapon? (Remember the Unarmed Strike is not a weapon debate god knows how long ago?)

That was the argument I did not want to get into. As far as I'm concerned unarmed strike is a 'manufactured weapon' for the sake of this debate. Whether it's a natural weapon, or even if 'unarmed attack' is a weapon, is beyond this.

 

[Infiniti2000]

A 16th-level fighter grappled by a balor's whip gets 4 grapple checks on his turn to escape, correct? Iterative grapple checks? No matter what weapon he has in hand?

Yes. Both sides agree.

What about a pit fiend who was grappled by the balor? A pit fiend holding a broken mug (improvised weapon) gets iterative attacks from his BAB in addition to his natural attacks, and so could try multiple times to escape. A pit fiend without the broken mug (so only using natural weapons) does NOT get iterative attacks from his BAB and so cannot try multiple times to escape?

No one has said that. I believe we all agree that the pit fiend could grapple normally, based on his BAB.

I'd say it's better to interpret it as the iterative attacks that the BAB could allow, or else house-rule it be one grapple check per round per monster, no matter what. Otherwise the RAW lead to a mess of inconsistent and nonsensical results.

There's a good chance you're not following the actual debate we're having. It's entirely about combining natural weapons with other types of weapons in a full attack action.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Sure, he can. He need only take the full attack action without using any natural weapons.

So, on to my next question.

A monster with two natural attacks - say, two Slams (primary) - cannot Slam once and then attempt a Disarm? Or a Trip?

I notice you also didn't respond to my first point, that an octopus can, in fact, attempt 8 grapples in place of his 8 natural weapon attacks. Do you agree that this is possible?

 

[Infiniti2000]

A monster with two natural attacks - say, two Slams (primary) - cannot Slam once and then attempt a Disarm? Or a Trip?

No, he cannot unless he uses the slam to disarm/trip.

I notice you also didn't respond to my first point, that an octopus can, in fact, attempt 8 grapples in place of his 8 natural weapon attacks. Do you agree that this is possible?

Absolutely not (but it was 9 grapples, you forgot the bite). I'm curious if anyone else agrees with you on this. Hyp?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Absolutely not (but it was 9 grapples, you forgot the bite). I'm curious if anyone else agrees with you on this. Hyp?

The giant octopus has eight opportunities to initiate a grapple, but that's because he has Improved Grab, and if any of his tentacles hits, he can attempt to grapple.

As far as substituting, say, his Bite attack for a Grapple...

Patryn, let's say the Giant Octopus has Cleave. He Bites a sahuagin, dropping him below 0 hit points and triggering Cleave. Can he use the Cleave attack to initiate a grapple with another opponent?

-Hyp.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

There's a good chance you're not following the actual debate we're having. It's entirely about combining natural weapons with other types of weapons in a full attack action.

It seemed to me that the original debate was about whether creatures with natural attacks get iterative grapple checks based on BAB, the part about combining attacks came along before that initial debate was resolved.

The pit fiend is just one example of a creature that might or might not get iterative attacks. You can ask "What weapon did it used to initiate the grapple?," but if it didn't initiate the grapple, that doesn't apply.

Look at the original giant croc example again, and give it 8 HD for the iterative attacks. The druid summons another giant croc and casts animal growth so the summoned thing can grapple it. How many grapple checks can the original croc make to escape? 2? He gets 2 checks per round? But if he were grappling the fighter, he would only get one check?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

No, he cannot unless he uses the slam to disarm/trip.

Okay, then.

Where are the rules that say this?

The closest I can get to it is:

7 These attack forms substitute for a melee attack, not an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or even as an attack of opportunity.

Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) ...

Unarmed Attacks: ...

“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed.

Taking these together, you could frame an argument that you can only substitue a Grapple for a Melee Attack, which would exclude substituting a Grapple for a natural weapon attack.

However, it would also exclude substituting a Grapple for an attack with an Unarmed Strike, so I'm pretty sure that reading is bubkus.

Could you expand on your reasoning?

 

[Infiniti2000]

Look at the original giant croc example again, and give it 8 HD for the iterative attacks. The druid summons another giant croc and casts animal growth so the summoned thing can grapple it. How many grapple checks can the original croc make to escape? 2? He gets 2 checks per round? But if he were grappling the fighter, he would only get one check?

I have no idea why you think he would get only 1 check if his BAB were +6 or higher. No one here is saying that; certainly not me at any rate. Patryn, however, is suggesting 3 (2 for iterative at BAB +6/+1 and 1 to sub the bite); Hyp is suggesting 2 + the bite as secondary. I suggest 2, with no bite, or 0, with a bite.