Grapple Question

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Grapple or Scrapple?

OR...

"They're grapplin', baby... Go ahead, baby..."
"They're grapplin', baby... Go ahead, baby..."

But seriously, folks...

When a creature with several natural attacks grapples an enemy, can it
attack with all of its natural weapons during its turn or does it only
get to choose one of them and lose the rest because it is busy
grappling? For example, a troll grapples a human fighter. On the round
that it grapples, does it get to attack with its other claw and its
bite? What about the round after? Does it select one and only one
natural attack to attack with, or can it rend and chew on the hapless
grappled fighter?

The reading we have been using is that the troll only gets ONE natural
attack (of its choice) per round on the grappled foe, even if it manages
to pin its opponent. Is this true?

It seems to me that in most cases, creatures with improved grab are
fools if they actually use the ability in combat. The otyugh, for
example, reduces its attack routine to 1 attack against an opponent,
loses dex bonus to AC, and opens itself up to sneak attacks while losing
its threatened area. What a waste, unless it has found a lone morsel
who might otherwise try to run away from it.

- Ron ^*^
28 answers Last reply
More about grapple question
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Werebat wrote:
    > Grapple or Scrapple?
    >
    > OR...
    >
    > "They're grapplin', baby... Go ahead, baby..."
    > "They're grapplin', baby... Go ahead, baby..."
    >
    > But seriously, folks...
    >
    > When a creature with several natural attacks grapples an enemy, can it
    > attack with all of its natural weapons during its turn or does it only
    > get to choose one of them and lose the rest because it is busy
    > grappling? For example, a troll grapples a human fighter. On the round
    > that it grapples, does it get to attack with its other claw and its
    > bite? What about the round after? Does it select one and only one
    > natural attack to attack with, or can it rend and chew on the hapless
    > grappled fighter?
    >
    > The reading we have been using is that the troll only gets ONE natural
    > attack (of its choice) per round on the grappled foe, even if it manages
    > to pin its opponent. Is this true?

    The grappling rules are a chaotic mess. Luckily, this question was
    addressed by the Sage in Rules of the Game. He gave two possible ways
    to rule this. Both are quite good.

    http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050322a

    Laszlo
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Michael Scott Brown wrote:
    > > The reading we have been using is that the troll only gets ONE natural
    > > attack (of its choice) per round on the grappled foe, even if it manages
    > > to pin its opponent. Is this true?
    >
    > What "reading" is that, you illiterate fool?

    If we assume a basic +4 BAB troll, then his reading (for this
    particular situation) happens to be perfectly consistent with the
    Sage's second suggested method, in Rules of the Game.

    Laszlo
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
    news:1zhve.141257$sy6.44960@lakeread04...
    > When a creature with several natural attacks grapples an enemy, can it
    > attack with all of its natural weapons during its turn or does it only
    > get to choose one of them and lose the rest because it is busy
    > grappling?

    Why would you think this? Does a human lose all of his attacks when he
    grapples? Does a human lose *any*?

    > For example, a troll grapples a human fighter. On the round
    > that it grapples, does it get to attack with its other claw and its
    > bite?

    Do, or do not, the grapple rules include, under the heading "while you
    are grappling",the words ATTACK YOUR OPPONENT?

    >What about the round after? Does it select one and only one
    > natural attack to attack with, or can it rend and chew on the hapless
    > grappled fighter?

    The troll has the fighter held until the fighter escapes. Presumably,
    the troll used at least one attack establishing the grapple (no touch
    attack, no grapple..), so it has lets of its natural weapons available to
    "attack your opponent" thereafter, but on the *next round* the troll could
    in fact open fire with all of its natural attacks, as usual. *Or* burn some
    of them on pins or other fancy maneuvers.

    > The reading we have been using is that the troll only gets ONE natural
    > attack (of its choice) per round on the grappled foe, even if it manages
    > to pin its opponent. Is this true?

    What "reading" is that, you illiterate fool?

    -Michael
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
    news:42bdf24b.48973692@news.telusplanet.net...
    > On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 14:40:59 -0400, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net>
    > The other claw seems unlikely but grab and bite makes sense to me.

    Thus impugning the worth of your advice. Kudos!

    -Michael
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    >
    > Michael Scott Brown wrote:
    >
    >>>The reading we have been using is that the troll only gets ONE natural
    >>>attack (of its choice) per round on the grappled foe, even if it manages
    >>>to pin its opponent. Is this true?
    >>
    >> What "reading" is that, you illiterate fool?
    >
    >
    > If we assume a basic +4 BAB troll, then his reading (for this
    > particular situation) happens to be perfectly consistent with the
    > Sage's second suggested method, in Rules of the Game.

    I think Mikey needs to learn to RTFM. :^)

    - Ron ^*^
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 05:01:49 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

    :"Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
    :news:1zhve.141257$sy6.44960@lakeread04...
    :> When a creature with several natural attacks grapples an enemy, can it
    :> attack with all of its natural weapons during its turn or does it only
    :> get to choose one of them and lose the rest because it is busy
    :> grappling?
    :
    : Why would you think this? Does a human lose all of his attacks when he
    :grapples? Does a human lose *any*?

    Actually, yes. "You can't attack with two
    weapons while grappling, even if both are light
    weapons". So a grappler who ordinarilly fights with
    two shortswords could only attack with one of them.
    He would get iterative attacks. If a creature with
    multiple natural attacks starts a grapple, it is thereafter
    grappling, and can only attack with one natural attack.

    --
    "Intelligence is too complex to capture in a single number." -Alfred Binet

    George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    George W Harris wrote:

    > On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 05:01:49 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    > <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >
    > :"Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
    > :news:1zhve.141257$sy6.44960@lakeread04...
    > :> When a creature with several natural attacks grapples an enemy, can it
    > :> attack with all of its natural weapons during its turn or does it only
    > :> get to choose one of them and lose the rest because it is busy
    > :> grappling?
    > :
    > : Why would you think this? Does a human lose all of his attacks when he
    > :grapples? Does a human lose *any*?
    >
    > Actually, yes. "You can't attack with two
    > weapons while grappling, even if both are light
    > weapons". So a grappler who ordinarilly fights with
    > two shortswords could only attack with one of them.
    > He would get iterative attacks. If a creature with
    > multiple natural attacks starts a grapple, it is thereafter
    > grappling, and can only attack with one natural attack.

    Which is silly. If a troll grapples me, why can't it sink its claws
    into my flesh as it grapples, and snap its teeth at me?

    If what you write above it true, it means that a man with a dagger
    fighting a tiger is best off grappling the tiger (or willingly being
    grappled BY the tiger). That's just foolish.

    - Ron ^*^
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
    news:1119777370.311402.162270@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > Michael Scott Brown wrote:
    > > > The reading we have been using is that the troll only gets ONE natural
    > > > attack (of its choice) per round on the grappled foe, even if it
    manages
    > > > to pin its opponent. Is this true?
    > >
    > > What "reading" is that, you illiterate fool?
    >
    > If we assume a basic +4 BAB troll, then his reading (for this
    > particular situation) happens to be perfectly consistent with the
    > Sage's second suggested method, in Rules of the Game.

    Untrue. You are now also added to the list of the illiterate.

    -Michael
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
    news:TXEve.141371$sy6.83259@lakeread04...
    > George W Harris wrote:
    > Which is silly. If a troll grapples me, why can't it sink its claws
    > into my flesh as it grapples, and snap its teeth at me?
    > If what you write above it true, it means that a man with a dagger
    > fighting a tiger is best off grappling the tiger (or willingly being
    > grappled BY the tiger). That's just foolish.

    Mr. Harris knows not of what he speaks. Grappling works for monsters
    just like any other form of combat does for them: take a Full Attack action,
    and use those attacks to EITHER {pin, damage your opponent, attack your
    opponent, {or other fancy things}} - or take a Standard action and use one
    limb to do one thing, of course. Just like always, the same limb can't be
    used twice. Just like always, many of the limbs will more than likely
    simply attack (at -4), unless a strong creature has something armored in its
    grip and would be better off "manipulating" it (ie; damage your opponent,
    which does damage through mechanisms that involve a contest of strength and
    combat skill).

    -Michael
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Michael Scott Brown wrote:
    > <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
    > news:1119777370.311402.162270@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > > Michael Scott Brown wrote:
    > > > > The reading we have been using is that the troll only gets ONE natural
    > > > > attack (of its choice) per round on the grappled foe, even if it
    > manages
    > > > > to pin its opponent. Is this true?
    > > >
    > > > What "reading" is that, you illiterate fool?
    > >
    > > If we assume a basic +4 BAB troll, then his reading (for this
    > > particular situation) happens to be perfectly consistent with the
    > > Sage's second suggested method, in Rules of the Game.
    >
    > Untrue.

    Depends. It's correct if we're talking about grapple attacks (opposed
    grapple check actions).

    If Ron was asking about the "attack your opponent" option, then yes,
    he's definitely wrong.

    Laszlo
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:30:47 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

    : Mr. Harris knows not of what he speaks. Grappling works for monsters
    :just like any other form of combat does for them: take a Full Attack action,
    :and use those attacks to EITHER {pin, damage your opponent, attack your
    :opponent, {or other fancy things}} - or take a Standard action and use one
    :limb to do one thing, of course.

    So in your view what is the meaning of the
    sentence "You can't attack with two weapons while
    grapping, even if both are light weapons"? You
    apparently think it has no applicability to natural
    attacks. What in the rules supports this interpretation?

    --
    "It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a
    democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
    dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
    bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them
    they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of
    patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
    country."
    -Hermann Goering

    George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "George W Harris" <gharrus@mundsprung.com> wrote in message
    news:iqmub1d72hshfmqd9llb3bkr389kkc33n4@4ax.com...
    > On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:30:47 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    > So in your view what is the meaning of the
    > sentence "You can't attack with two weapons while
    > grapping, even if both are light weapons"? You
    > apparently think it has no applicability to natural
    > attacks. What in the rules supports this interpretation?

    The part where "attack with two weapons" is a specific reference two two
    weapons fighting and the rules make no sense whatsoever when interpreted any
    other way (note that 3.5E uses light weapon & natural weapon separately, so
    the light-weapon comment is highly contextual).
    A variety of thought experiments reinforce this proposition. For
    instance, it is absurd to suggest that a character holding a dagger and
    wearing spiked armor cannot use each one in turn for iterative attacks just
    because he is grappled, and we can upgrade the level of absurdity
    arbitrarily if we start thinking about how unarmed strikes are represented.
    Meanwhile, we observe that the highly intricate fighting style required to
    make use of two weapons _together_ to a degree that would warrant a bonus
    attack in D&D ... is *utterly* incompatible with being entangled and
    fighting for the freedom to strike at all.
    Further the *players* handbook is written entirely from the perspective
    that those making use of those rules are humanoid PCs as per the race
    descriptions in the first chapters - the ways that monsters fight
    (primary/secondary weaponry) is not even described in the PhB (IIRC)- which
    means that many restrictions on 'weapons' are often confined to
    *manufactured* weapons and their equivalents. In addition, many monsters in
    the monster manual have more than one natural weapon with the improved grab
    capability, which produces some rather ludicrous results if such a "one at
    at ime" rule is applied to them.
    And on top of all *that*, the Sage has answered these questions in Sage
    Advice (which are in the FAQ, IIRC), and WOTC maintains ARTICLES on this
    topic on their website, all of which reflect the things I have related on
    this thread.

    In short, the issue is settled, has been for years, and you would do
    well to visit some of those resources and upgrade your understanding.

    -Michael
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "George W Harris" <gharrus@mundsprung.com> wrote in message
    news:sqvub1l6k1pkt4qqt945u2d38gppanj77d@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 03:20:38 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    > : Suggesting that capitalization is *intended* to be convincing is a
    > :STRAWMAN, you logic-abusing cur.
    >
    > Since the only text of yours was unsupported
    > assertions and insults, it's a reasonable inference.

    Not in the least, you ignorant FOOL. Further, you would do well to
    refrain from making appeals to "reasonable" until such time as you
    demonstrate at least some familiarity with the concepts of reason. Your ...
    "arguments" ... thus far indicate that you lack the facility entire, given
    that you have tried to "win" a discussing by repeating a quote from the
    rules that means something entirely other than you think it does.

    > Complaining about people not reading the rules and
    > then failing to cite any rules that support your position
    > is the epitome of argument by excessive capitalization.

    Horseshit. This might come as a shock, Johnny-Come-Lately, but the issue
    you are so impotently attempting to discuss is old, stale, and quite
    settled. There is no need to re-prove the arguments again, they are *done*,
    and thus my statements on the topic are not "argument" or "conjecture" but
    references to FACTS.

    Here's a free hint. Get smarter. *Now*.

    -Michael
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Michael Scott Brown wrote:

    > "George W Harris" <gharrus@mundsprung.com> wrote in message
    > news:sqvub1l6k1pkt4qqt945u2d38gppanj77d@4ax.com...
    >
    >>On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 03:20:38 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    >>: Suggesting that capitalization is *intended* to be convincing is a
    >>:STRAWMAN, you logic-abusing cur.
    >>
    >>Since the only text of yours was unsupported
    >>assertions and insults, it's a reasonable inference.
    >
    >
    > Not in the least, you ignorant FOOL.

    Profion?

    - Ron ^*^
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 03:18:19 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

    :"George W Harris" <gharrus@mundsprung.com> wrote in message
    :news:iqmub1d72hshfmqd9llb3bkr389kkc33n4@4ax.com...
    :> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:30:47 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    :> So in your view what is the meaning of the
    :> sentence "You can't attack with two weapons while
    :> grapping, even if both are light weapons"? You
    :> apparently think it has no applicability to natural
    :> attacks. What in the rules supports this interpretation?
    :
    : The part where "attack with two weapons" is a specific reference two two
    :weapons fighting and the rules make no sense whatsoever when interpreted any
    :other way (note that 3.5E uses light weapon & natural weapon separately, so
    :the light-weapon comment is highly contextual).

    But hardly definitive.

    : A variety of thought experiments reinforce this proposition. For
    :instance, it is absurd to suggest that a character holding a dagger and
    :wearing spiked armor cannot use each one in turn for iterative attacks just
    :because he is grappled,

    Why is that absurd? What completely
    unreasonable situations result if we make that
    interpretation? Try to answer with logic rather than
    insults and shouting.

    : Further the *players* handbook is written entirely from the perspective
    :that those making use of those rules are humanoid PCs as per the race
    :descriptions in the first chapters - the ways that monsters fight
    :(primary/secondary weaponry) is not even described in the PhB (IIRC)- which
    :means that many restrictions on 'weapons' are often confined to
    :*manufactured* weapons and their equivalents.

    Such restrictions aren't made in the section
    on grappling, however. There isn't a separate index
    entry for grappling in the DMG, and a quick perusal
    doesn't find anything, so given the lack of an explicit
    "monsters do things differently" the inference that they
    do things the same is perfectly reasonable.

    :In addition, many monsters in
    :the monster manual have more than one natural weapon with the improved grab
    :capability, which produces some rather ludicrous results if such a "one at
    :at ime" rule is applied to them.

    What about the rule would produce ludicrous
    results? Use the Mind-Flayer for an example. Why
    would the situation be completely unreasonable? Again,
    eschew shouting and insults.

    : And on top of all *that*, the Sage has answered these questions in Sage
    :Advice (which are in the FAQ, IIRC), and WOTC maintains ARTICLES on this
    :topic on their website, all of which reflect the things I have related on
    :this thread.

    You might want to follow your advice and
    actually read the material you cite. It presents two
    options: one as you describe, and the other where the
    monster gets a single attack plus one additional attack
    for each 5 points of BAB (so that if a creatures BAB is
    less than (5*(# of attacks))-4, it *would* lose attacks).
    It also doesn't give a preference between the two.

    http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050322a

    :: In short, the issue is settled, has been for years, and you would do
    :well to visit some of those resources and upgrade your understanding.

    Right back atcha.
    :
    :-Michael

    --
    "The truths of mathematics describe a bright and clear universe,
    exquisite and beautiful in its structure, in comparison with
    which the physical world is turbid and confused."

    -Eulogy for G.H.Hardy

    George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "George W Harris" <gharrus@mundsprung.com> wrote in message
    news:pvvub1t221k6umupde13anq2j8u3lk264p@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 03:18:19 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    > : The part where "attack with two weapons" is a specific reference two
    two
    > :weapons fighting and the rules make no sense whatsoever when interpreted
    any
    > :other way (note that 3.5E uses light weapon & natural weapon separately,
    so
    > :the light-weapon comment is highly contextual).
    >
    > But hardly definitive.

    Yes, definitive. It wouldn't say "even if light weapons" unless it was
    referring to TWF, because that's the only place such a rule might possibly
    be relevant.

    > : A variety of thought experiments reinforce this proposition. For
    > :instance, it is absurd to suggest that a character holding a dagger and
    > :wearing spiked armor cannot use each one in turn for iterative attacks
    just
    > :because he is grappled,
    >
    > Why is that absurd? What completely unreasonable situations result if we
    make that
    > interpretation?

    The unarmed combat model D&D uses doesn't slave an unarmed strike to
    any particular limb. So one unarmed strike could be an elbow, another could
    be a knee, etc. Armor spikes are attached to all your limbs as well, so
    using them for a normal attack is simply a case of throwing an elbow or a
    knee - or a fist, since spikes can be on the gauntlets, too. It is
    ludicrous to suggest that one cannot perform a knee strike while grappling
    save by sacrificing any hope of attacking with your hands - particularly
    when heroes can be so good at fighting in general that when grappled they
    could make upwards of *four* such attacks in six seconds. Grappling
    obviously doesn't hinder them that much.

    > : Further the *players* handbook is written entirely from the
    perspective
    > :that those making use of those rules are humanoid PCs as per the race
    > :descriptions in the first chapters - the ways that monsters fight
    > :(primary/secondary weaponry) is not even described in the PhB (IIRC)- whi
    ch
    > :means that many restrictions on 'weapons' are often confined to
    > :*manufactured* weapons and their equivalents.
    >
    > Such restrictions aren't made in the section on grappling, however.

    Ahem. It annoys me when people don't pay attention to important
    arguments. The *PLAYERS* handbook is written ENTIRELY from the perspective
    that those making use of the rules are humanoid PCs (of small and medium
    size, for that matter). There isn't a comment in the entire book on the
    topic of how monsters are different, or what "restrictions" are or are not
    being used in "this section" that might be relevant to a primary/secondary
    weapons user. Consequently, the fact that no restrictions are made in the
    grappling section is IRRELEVANT. You have not made an argument by
    mentioning this. The grappling section is written in terms of iterative
    attacks. Non-humanoid monsters *don't use* iterative attacks. That is, as
    far as the matter of blindly applying the PhB rules to natural weapons as
    well as manufactured ones is concerned, the closing of the case.
    This leaves something of a void, which annoyed us greatly when the
    edition was published, which was filled Officially (tm) by the Sage, who
    proposed that monsters use the rules as-is but replacing iterative attack
    with their suite of natural weapons.

    > :In addition, many monsters in
    > :the monster manual have more than one natural weapon with the improved
    grab
    > :capability, which produces some rather ludicrous results if such a "one
    at
    > :at ime" rule is applied to them.
    >
    > What about the rule would produce ludicrous
    > results? Use the Mind-Flayer for an example. Why
    > would the situation be completely unreasonable? Again,
    > eschew shouting and insults.

    I find it somewhat distressing that you cannot grasp that allowing a
    mind flayer to attack a person only with ONE TENTACLE out of the four
    co-located ones dangling from its mouth is ludicrous.

    > You might want to follow your advice and
    > actually read the material you cite. It presents two
    > options: one as you describe, and the other where the
    > monster gets a single attack plus one additional attack
    > for each 5 points of BAB (so that if a creatures BAB is
    > less than (5*(# of attacks))-4, it *would* lose attacks).
    > It also doesn't give a preference between the two.

    Again, we see your IGNORANCE interfering with your ability to make
    intelligent comments. In the iterative attack option he provides (a new
    addition that came with the aticle), *HE STILL ASSIGNS EACH ITERATIVE ATTACK
    TO A NATURAL WEAPON*, and goes on to suggest that if the creature runs out
    of natural weapons before it runs out of iterative attacks then its
    remaining 'iterative' grappling actions can only do bland "unarmed strike"
    damage. This option also doesn't eliminate the ability of the monster to
    simply full attack (at -4) normally; this modification is for the purposes
    of playing games with maneuvers requiring grapple checks.
    Consequently, in *all* the options on the website, there is NO
    RESTRICTION on attacking with more than one of the monster's natural weapons
    during the grapple.
    Which means, as I told you in the first place, that the passage about
    "can't attack with two weapons" is NOT A RESTRICTION ON NATURAL WEAPONS USE,
    and that the issue has been OFFICIALLY SETTLED.

    You are not making a good impression, Harris. Again, I suggest that you
    get smarter. *NOW*.

    -Michael
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mere moments before death, Michael Scott Brown hastily scrawled:
    >"George W Harris" <gharrus@mundsprung.com> wrote in message
    >news:pvvub1t221k6umupde13anq2j8u3lk264p@4ax.com...
    >> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 03:18:19 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    >> : The part where "attack with two weapons" is a specific reference two
    >two
    >> :weapons fighting and the rules make no sense whatsoever when interpreted
    >any
    >> :other way (note that 3.5E uses light weapon & natural weapon separately,
    >so
    >> :the light-weapon comment is highly contextual).
    >>
    >> But hardly definitive.
    >
    > Yes, definitive. It wouldn't say "even if light weapons" unless it was
    >referring to TWF, because that's the only place such a rule might possibly
    >be relevant.

    It wouldn't have anything at all to do with the fact that you're
    allowed to use light weapons to attack your opponent while engaged in
    a grapple, now would it?


    Ed Chauvin IV

    --
    DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
    use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
    kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
    modifier G @ 11.

    "I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
    --Terry Austin
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote in message
    news:1119861081.201461.183090@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > Michael Scott Brown wrote:
    > > > If we assume a basic +4 BAB troll, then his reading (for this
    > > > particular situation) happens to be perfectly consistent with the
    > > > Sage's second suggested method, in Rules of the Game.
    > >
    > > Untrue.
    >
    > Depends. It's correct if we're talking about grapple attacks (opposed
    > grapple check actions).

    Which we are not. There is no "if", therefore.

    -Michael
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 12:38:31 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

    :"George W Harris" <gharrus@mundsprung.com> wrote in message
    :news:pvvub1t221k6umupde13anq2j8u3lk264p@4ax.com...
    :> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 03:18:19 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    :> : The part where "attack with two weapons" is a specific reference two
    :two
    :> :weapons fighting and the rules make no sense whatsoever when interpreted
    :any
    :> :other way (note that 3.5E uses light weapon & natural weapon separately,
    :so
    :> :the light-weapon comment is highly contextual).
    :>
    :> But hardly definitive.
    :
    : Yes, definitive. It wouldn't say "even if light weapons" unless it was
    :referring to TWF, because that's the only place such a rule might possibly
    :be relevant.

    So, what kind of weapons are you restricted to
    using while grappling? Would they be *light* weapons,
    hmmmm? Moron.
    :
    :> Why is that absurd? What completely unreasonable situations result if we
    :make that
    :> interpretation?
    :
    : The unarmed combat model D&D uses doesn't slave an unarmed strike to
    :any particular limb.
    :So one unarmed strike could be an elbow, another could
    :be a knee, etc. Armor spikes are attached to all your limbs as well, so
    :using them for a normal attack is simply a case of throwing an elbow or a
    :knee - or a fist, since spikes can be on the gauntlets, too. It is
    :ludicrous to suggest that one cannot perform a knee strike while grappling
    :save by sacrificing any hope of attacking with your hands - particularly
    :when heroes can be so good at fighting in general that when grappled they
    :could make upwards of *four* such attacks in six seconds. Grappling
    :obviously doesn't hinder them that much.

    So your response is just to assert it's ludcrous
    again. Here's a hint for you: when you're grappled,
    your motion is impeded. If you can free every single
    one of your limbs to attack, then your motion isn't really
    impeded very much. It's ludicrous to suggest that
    someone who is grappled can still move every single
    one of his limbs freely.
    :
    :> : Further the *players* handbook is written entirely from the
    :perspective
    :> :that those making use of those rules are humanoid PCs as per the race
    :> :descriptions in the first chapters - the ways that monsters fight
    :> :(primary/secondary weaponry) is not even described in the PhB (IIRC)- whi
    :ch
    :> :means that many restrictions on 'weapons' are often confined to
    :> :*manufactured* weapons and their equivalents.
    :>
    :> Such restrictions aren't made in the section on grappling, however.
    :
    : Ahem. It annoys me when people don't pay attention to important
    :arguments. The *PLAYERS* handbook is written ENTIRELY from the perspective
    :that those making use of the rules are humanoid PCs (of small and medium
    :size, for that matter). There isn't a comment in the entire book on the
    :topic of how monsters are different, or what "restrictions" are or are not
    :being used in "this section" that might be relevant to a primary/secondary
    :weapons user. Consequently, the fact that no restrictions are made in the
    :grappling section is IRRELEVANT.

    They aren't made anywhere in the DMG or MM
    either, though, so your entire argument falls flat.

    :> :In addition, many monsters in
    :> :the monster manual have more than one natural weapon with the improved
    :grab
    :> :capability, which produces some rather ludicrous results if such a "one
    :at
    :> :at ime" rule is applied to them.
    :>
    :> What about the rule would produce ludicrous
    :> results? Use the Mind-Flayer for an example. Why
    :> would the situation be completely unreasonable? Again,
    :> eschew shouting and insults.
    :
    : I find it somewhat distressing that you cannot grasp that allowing a
    :mind flayer to attack a person only with ONE TENTACLE out of the four
    :co-located ones dangling from its mouth is ludicrous.

    I don't find the ease with which you can be
    distressed a very convincing argument. So why is it
    ludicrous that a mind-flayer who *instead* wraps
    someone up and pulls him into the mind-flayer's hex,
    forgoes any subsequent attacks? It's not like he isn't
    doing anything else.

    :> You might want to follow your advice and
    :> actually read the material you cite. It presents two
    :> options: one as you describe, and the other where the
    :> monster gets a single attack plus one additional attack
    :> for each 5 points of BAB (so that if a creatures BAB is
    :> less than (5*(# of attacks))-4, it *would* lose attacks).
    :> It also doesn't give a preference between the two.
    :
    : Again, we see your IGNORANCE interfering with your ability to make
    :intelligent comments.

    Your EXCESSIVE CAPITALIZATION and
    RELIANCE on INSULTS marks you as a GENETIC
    SCUM. No, it's just some sloppy reading at 3am.

    : You are not making a good impression, Harris. Again, I suggest that you
    :get smarter. *NOW*.

    I wouldn't want to outshine you *too* brightly.
    I'm still waiting for you to apologize for berating me for
    not reading the rules when there was nothing in the
    rules to support your position or invalidate mine.

    :-Michael

    --
    "If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste more like
    prunes than rhubarb does" -Groucho Marx

    George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Werebat wrote:
    > Grapple or Scrapple?
    >
    > OR...
    >
    > "They're grapplin', baby... Go ahead, baby..."
    > "They're grapplin', baby... Go ahead, baby..."
    >
    > But seriously, folks...
    >
    > When a creature with several natural attacks grapples an enemy, can it
    > attack with all of its natural weapons during its turn or does it only
    > get to choose one of them and lose the rest because it is busy
    > grappling? For example, a troll grapples a human fighter. On the round
    > that it grapples, does it get to attack with its other claw and its
    > bite? What about the round after? Does it select one and only one
    > natural attack to attack with, or can it rend and chew on the hapless
    > grappled fighter?
    >

    > The reading we have been using is that the troll only gets ONE natural
    > attack (of its choice) per round on the grappled foe, even if it manages
    > to pin its opponent. Is this true?

    Nice troll Ron.

    - Justisaur.
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Justisaur wrote:

    >
    > Werebat wrote:
    >
    >>Grapple or Scrapple?
    >>
    >>OR...
    >>
    >>"They're grapplin', baby... Go ahead, baby..."
    >>"They're grapplin', baby... Go ahead, baby..."
    >>
    >>But seriously, folks...
    >>
    >>When a creature with several natural attacks grapples an enemy, can it
    >>attack with all of its natural weapons during its turn or does it only
    >>get to choose one of them and lose the rest because it is busy
    >>grappling? For example, a troll grapples a human fighter. On the round
    >>that it grapples, does it get to attack with its other claw and its
    >>bite? What about the round after? Does it select one and only one
    >>natural attack to attack with, or can it rend and chew on the hapless
    >>grappled fighter?
    >>
    >
    >
    >>The reading we have been using is that the troll only gets ONE natural
    >>attack (of its choice) per round on the grappled foe, even if it manages
    >>to pin its opponent. Is this true?
    >
    >
    > Nice troll Ron.

    I'd like to be grappled by Serena Williams.

    - Ron ^*^
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "George W Harris" <gharrus@mundsprung.com> wrote in message
    news:p1a0c1tk91l4kdodb37beei6q599490tbf@4ax.com...
    > : Yes, definitive. It wouldn't say "even if light weapons" unless it
    was
    > :referring to TWF, because that's the only place such a rule might
    possibly
    > :be relevant.
    >
    > So, what kind of weapons are you restricted to using while grappling?
    Would they be *light* weapons,
    > hmmmm? Moron.

    Hmm. This charge of "moron" you render is, unfortunately, one that
    reflects resoundingly upon its speaker. You are attempting to argue that
    you are justified in your misinterpretation because the passage says "You
    can't attack with two weapons [even if they are the only weapons you are
    allowed to use]." I would ask you this - why on earth would you be
    attacking with two weapons of a type that COULD NOT be used in a grapple in
    the first place? That hardly makes any sense!
    Furhter, the PhB's commentary on "attack your opponent" ACTUALLY says:
    "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. You can't attack with two weapons while grappling,
    even if they are light weapons."

    Now, were your hypothesis correct - that the comment was a tautological
    reference to the weapons which you are restrited to using, the third
    sentence would read "You can't attack with two weapons while grappling, even
    if they are light weapons, unarmed strikes, or natural weapons." But that's
    not what it actually says. As I have explained to you from the beginning,
    this is only interpreted *coherently* in the context of two-weapons
    fighting. The rule does not restrict the use of multiple natural weapons in
    a grapple, nor does it prevent someone from mixing unarmed strikes, light
    weapon attacks, and natural weapon attacks - it only blocks the use of TWF.

    At this juncture, you have been well and truly shamed in public for
    making silly statements and for revealing a deficient intellect. Learn from
    this that it is important to make use of *all* the rules of the game, rather
    than simply clinging, leech-like, to the tasty ankles of cherry picked
    phrases. Such a strategy invariably leads one to bad places, filled with
    dark things and lots of nasty teeth, to be with the biting and the
    crunching. Namely, MSB.

    -Michael
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:42:34 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

    : Hmm. This charge of "moron" you render is, unfortunately, one that
    :reflects resoundingly upon its speaker.

    Let's look at this thread as a whole. You *could*
    have posted the following:


    http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050308a

    "If you have multiple natural weapons, however, you can
    use all of them while grappling. "


    That would have ended the thread right there.
    But you didn't. Instead, in your ten postings to this thread,
    by my count you have posted zero quoted from the rules
    that weren't previously quoted by another poster, and
    zero pointers to actual rules text by page number, and
    zero URLs of web articles. In those ten postings you have
    relied instead on the capslock key and insults to argue your
    point.

    Even when you're right and I'm wrong, I'm ten times
    smarter than you.

    --
    /buddha@nirvana.net/h:k

    George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 17:25:27 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:

    : I related to you very early in the discussion that the issue was
    :*settled* by the Sage and documented on Wotc's website.

    It was your *sixth* post in the thread, and it
    was just a claim that there was a statement out there.
    There was no pointer and there was no quote. As
    support, it was about as solid as "Is too!"

    *I* had to do your work for you. I provided a
    far better argument for your position than you ever did
    or are capable of doing.

    --
    "If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste more like
    prunes than rhubarb does" -Groucho Marx

    George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    George W Harris wrote:

    > On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:42:34 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
    > <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >
    > : Hmm. This charge of "moron" you render is, unfortunately, one that
    > :reflects resoundingly upon its speaker.
    >
    > Let's look at this thread as a whole. You *could*
    > have posted the following:
    >
    >
    > http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050308a
    >
    > "If you have multiple natural weapons, however, you can
    > use all of them while grappling. "

    Yep, this is the bit that I read that answered all my questions.

    - Ron ^*^
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Werebat wrote:

    > It seems to me that in most cases, creatures with improved grab are
    > fools if they actually use the ability in combat. The otyugh, for
    > example, reduces its attack routine to 1 attack against an opponent,
    > loses dex bonus to AC, and opens itself up to sneak attacks while losing
    > its threatened area. What a waste, unless it has found a lone morsel
    > who might otherwise try to run away from it.

    The real key here is Skip's phrase "provided that the natural weapon can
    hold onto the target in some fashion." This really means it's the DM's
    judgment
    call on how many grapple checks a monster can make. If all the weapons
    are grabby, like an aboleth's tentacles, the answer is "all," which would be
    four in the aboleth's case.

    If, like the troll, the bite is deemed too small to actually hold onto
    the target,
    the DM might say the troll only gets 2 checks, one with each claw using
    DYO,
    and the third would have to be AYO with the bite. Other DMs might say that,
    once you're in a grapple, they ALL must be DYO or AYO.

    The real power of Improved Grab is to bypass AOOs when starting a grapple
    and making someone who doesn't want to be in a grapple very uncomfortable.
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Some Guy" <someguy@thedoor.gov> wrote in message
    news:cW1ye.3253$HV1.2227@fed1read07...
    > Werebat wrote:
    >
    > > It seems to me that in most cases, creatures with improved grab are
    > > fools if they actually use the ability in combat. The otyugh, for
    > > example, reduces its attack routine to 1 attack against an opponent,
    > > loses dex bonus to AC, and opens itself up to sneak attacks while losing
    > > its threatened area. What a waste, unless it has found a lone morsel
    > > who might otherwise try to run away from it.
    >
    > The real key here is Skip's phrase "provided that the natural weapon can
    > hold onto the target in some fashion."

    No, it isn't, because the question was how many could be used to attack.

    -Michael
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Michael Scott Brown wrote:
    > "Some Guy" <someguy@thedoor.gov> wrote in message
    > news:cW1ye.3253$HV1.2227@fed1read07...
    >
    >>Werebat wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>It seems to me that in most cases, creatures with improved grab are
    >>>fools if they actually use the ability in combat. The otyugh, for
    >>>example, reduces its attack routine to 1 attack against an opponent,
    >>>loses dex bonus to AC, and opens itself up to sneak attacks while losing
    >>>its threatened area. What a waste, unless it has found a lone morsel
    >>>who might otherwise try to run away from it.
    >>
    >>The real key here is Skip's phrase "provided that the natural weapon can
    >>hold onto the target in some fashion."
    >
    >
    > No, it isn't, because the question was how many could be used to attack.
    >
    > -Michael
    >
    >

    Ah, my mistake. Sorry about that.
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games