Tell Me About A Tiger's Full Attack...

[Kerrick]

If it were me, I'd say that the charge (pounce) ends when she hits the first enemy, whether or not she killed him. I think what you/she were envisioning was something like "The tiger leaps onto the first target, claws it/rakes it, and it goes down. She then uses it as a springboard to leap onto the next one." That's a cool manuever, but even then I'd rule that the second leap would have to wait till the next round. And, unless the second target is more than 10 feet away, it wouldn't be a true charge attack, it'd simply be a leap (give her a +1/+2 bonus to attack and let her make claw attacks, but that's it).

As far as grappling... yeah, I'd say that unless the target is dead, she wouldn't be able to disengage easily. Pointing to my above example - if she killed him, she could leap again off his body and make a new attack.

I don't know if I like d20srd's wording -- it doesn't even mention using it on a charge for one thing -- though it does contain an interesting line...

That's straight from the MM.

EDIT: Ok, MM doesn't mention charge, either. Guess it's not universally true for all things with rake.

I'm not sure what you mean here, so apologies if I'm getting it wrong, but... the Pounce ability says "When a creature with this special ability makes a charge, it can follow with a full attack - including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability."

Charge allows you make a single attack, but pounce allows a full attack. I think it's fair to assume that it's applicable against one opponent only.

Still, aside from the quoted line, I think it's supposed to always be two rakes and no more per round. "...gains two additional claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe." To me that implies you're getting a total of two extras, only to be used on a grappled target, as opposed to two rake attacks per grappled target.

Yeah - rake is part of the full attack. Basically, it comes down to "how many opponents can you grapple in a round?" Common sense would say "one", unless you're some kind of multi-tentacled horror.

 

[Infiniti2000]

It depends on whether or not Step 4: Maintain Grapple is considered compulsory.

Step 4 doesn't apply for improved grab, though, does it? I mean, how can you both step into your opponent's space and pull him into yours?

As for the OP, you cannot release an opponent as a free action unless you are pinning them. Or, rather, there's a specific rule allowing it for pinning and not one for not-pinning, so that's a fairly valid assumption. There might be something that allows you to release an opponent as a free action if the opponent is also willing, but not in the core rules to my knowledge (I seem to recall reading it, though, perhaps in Rules of the Game).

As for the DM, yeah, that's kind of annoying. He wanted to disallow the bogus attack routine, but didn't know the real rules reason why. In his defense, I'd be ticked off at you and your girlfriend for trying to slip one by on him without running it past him first. Either not bringing up an obviously broken combo first, or worse, trying to justify it (falsely) during a game is inexcusable.

PS. "Shifting grips" is a whole other topic, one which stirred up quite a ruckus. I'd guess the consensus to be about 65-35 in favor of allowing it as a free action, but for the record I'm an ardent supporter of it being a move action (equivalent to drawing a weapon). Bear in mind that this topic also branches quickly into a discussion of 'wielding' vs. 'holding'.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

Step 4 doesn't apply for improved grab, though, does it? I mean, how can you both step into your opponent's space and pull him into yours?

As for the OP, you cannot release an opponent as a free action unless you are pinning them. Or, rather, there's a specific rule allowing it for pinning and not one for not-pinning, so that's a fairly valid assumption. There might be something that allows you to release an opponent as a free action if the opponent is also willing, but not in the core rules to my knowledge (I seem to recall reading it, though, perhaps in Rules of the Game).

As for the DM, yeah, that's kind of annoying. He wanted to disallow the bogus attack routine, but didn't know the real rules reason why. In his defense, I'd be ticked off at you and your girlfriend for trying to slip one by on him without running it past him first. Either not bringing up an obviously broken combo first, or worse, trying to justify it (falsely) during a game is inexcusable.

PS. "Shifting grips" is a whole other topic, one which stirred up quite a ruckus. I'd guess the consensus to be about 65-35 in favor of allowing it as a free action, but for the record I'm an ardent supporter of it being a move action (equivalent to drawing a weapon). Bear in mind that this topic also branches quickly into a discussion of 'wielding' vs. 'holding'.

hmm, my SRD appears to be outdated. last date modified 12/1/05

our last DM has been really abusing us with grapple, incorrectly. lol
our opponents have always been impossible to escape when they grapple you, (without magic, pretty much) but then drop you and full attack you the next round.

 

[Runestar]

Must you actually be grappling to deal rake damage after a charge? The line seems a little ambiguous, and seems to suggests that if the lion pounces, it can make 2 rakes as normal attacks (without having to grapple).

 

[Infiniti2000]

Must you actually be grappling to deal rake damage after a charge? The line seems a little ambiguous, and seems to suggests that if the lion pounces, it can make 2 rakes as normal attacks (without having to grapple).

There are two points on this. One is that the tiger must Pounce to do two rake attacks on the full attack after the charge. The second is that upon winning an opposed grapple check (after an improved grab), the tiger "can rake", i.e. make a single rake attack per the Rake description. So, if you could release your opponent as a free action, then conceivably the combo proposed in the OP would work. Granted, the wording is still ambiguous because the 'can rake' could mean that the tiger could use a rake attack in the following rounds and not necessarily immediately.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Step 4 doesn't apply for improved grab, though, does it? I mean, how can you both step into your opponent's space and pull him into yours?

True - I wasn't taking Improved Grab into account. Improved Grab effectively modifies Step 3: "when the creature gains a hold, it pulls..." - so there isn't really a chance to avoid maintaining a hold, and escaping the grab would be necessary to become, uh, ungrappling.

-Hyp.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

True - I wasn't taking Improved Grab into account. Improved Grab effectively modifies Step 3: "when the creature gains a hold, it pulls..." - so there isn't really a chance to avoid maintaining a hold, and escaping the grab would be necessary to become, uh, ungrappling.

-Hyp.

It's kind of weird how D&D creatures are all covered in fly paper.

Looks like, by the rules, even if a grappler kills their target, they can't just drop them.
Unless they use them as a weapon, then they can drop a weapon as a free action.

I see they modified the 'All About Grappling' article on the WOTC site.
Looks like if the tiger takes the -20, then they can keep attacking other targets.

Funny how a creature with Improved Grab can just move and drag their opponent with them, but everyone else has to make grapple checks. But neither can just let go.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

It's kind of weird how D&D creatures are all covered in fly paper.

Looks like, by the rules, even if a grappler kills their target, they can't just drop them.
Unless they use them as a weapon, then they can drop a weapon as a free action.

Funny how a creature with Improved Grab can just move and drag their opponent with them, but everyone else has to make grapple checks. But neither can just let go.

And I don't understand it. If the other guy WANTS to let go (or is dead), why can't a person just release his grip on another person as easily as he does his sword? If the other person resists, it'd take a grapple check (and attack action), but it seems reasonable to allow a free action release if neither party resists.

Yay for common sense?

 

[Hypersmurf]

And I don't understand it. If the other guy WANTS to let go (or is dead), why can't a person just release his grip on another person as easily as he does his sword? If the other person resists, it'd take a grapple check (and attack action), but it seems reasonable to allow a free action release if neither party resists.

You can Escape a Grapple without a check if the opponent doesn't resist... but it's still an action yu take in place of an attack, not a free action:

Escape from Grapple: You can escape a grapple by winning an opposed grapple check in place of making an attack. You can make an Escape Artist check in place of your grapple check if you so desire, but this requires a standard action. If more than one opponent is grappling you, your grapple check result has to beat all their individual check results to escape. (Opponents don’t have to try to hold you if they don’t want to.) If you escape, you finish the action by moving into any space adjacent to your opponent(s).

-Hyp.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

So after you've dropped the foe you're grappling from damage, you still have to spend an attack action just dumping his limp body before you can freely move again? Well, I suppose you could make an auto-win grapple check to move some distance dragging the carcass with you. Funny visual image there. And I suppose you retain all the penalties of grappling the corpse until you take an action to let go, too. Heck, against a battalion of archers, corpse shields = 50% miss chance, pretty sweet! And it could be rat corpses, by RAW. Yet another use for a bag of rats, joy of joys!