Grappling doubts

[bootzin]

It's mainly 3 doubts regarding grapple

First of all, the locking hand graft says it gives a +5 bonus "to oppose attempts to escape a grapple", what exactly does this mean? Is it applied on normal grapple checks? Or only after you've grappled an enemy and are trying to mantain hold?

Second: When is constrict damage applied? I mean, it says you deal constrict damage on a succesful grapple check, but does that mean that if an opponent tries to escape a grapple on his turn and he fails you deal damage to him?

Finally: Same question as 2 but regarding armor spikes

EDIT: Also, while I'm grappling, can I attack with all my natural weapons? Or just the amount my BAB allows?

[Red Fel]

It's mainly 3 doubts regarding grapple

First of all, the locking hand graft says it gives a +5 bonus "to oppose attempts to escape a grapple", what exactly does this mean? Is it applied on normal grapple checks? Or only after you've grappled an enemy and are trying to mantain hold?

While grappling, there is a finite list of actions you can take. Per the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#grapple), one of those actions is "escape from a grapple." You can make a Grapple check, or an Escape Artist check as a standard action, to wriggle out. The Locking Hand graft gives you a +5 on a Grapple check to oppose that attempt.


Second: When is constrict damage applied? I mean, it says you deal constrict damage on a succesful grapple check, but does that mean that if an opponent tries to escape a grapple on his turn and he fails you deal damage to him?

After you make a successful Grapple check. If he tries to escape, he is making a Grapple check; your roll is simply opposing that.


Finally: Same question as 2 but regarding armor spikes

Same answer.


EDIT: Also, while I'm grappling, can I attack with all my natural weapons? Or just the amount my BAB allows?

Again per the SRD:

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 both are light weapons.

That said, the number of actions you can perform while grappling is dictated by your BAB; that is, "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." Thus, you can perform multiple one-attacks based on your BAB. If you have a +11 BAB, for instance, that's three attacks, so you could perform three natural weapon attacks, or three unarmed attacks, or one of each and a pin attempt, or whatever combination you choose.

[bootzin]

Thanks for the reply (:

One more thing though, if a monster with the Greater Multigrab feat is grappling with only one of it's limbs, is he still subject to those same rules? More specifically, is he still limited by his BAB regarding the actions he can make? I think I've read somewhere that if you hold an opponent with only one limb you (without the feat) take a -20 penalty to your grapple check and is not considered grappled yourself, I'm not sure how far this definition goes, though

[Red Fel]

Thanks for the reply (:

One more thing though, if a monster with the Greater Multigrab feat is grappling with only one of it's limbs, is he still subject to those same rules? More specifically, is he still limited by his BAB regarding the actions he can make? I think I've read somewhere that if you hold an opponent with only one limb you (without the feat) take a -20 penalty to your grapple check and is not considered grappled yourself, I'm not sure how far this definition goes, though

All rules still apply unless text says otherwise. So let's go to it. Greater Multigrab requires the Multigrab feat and the Improved Grab ability.

Improved Grab (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_improvedgrab&alpha=I) gives several benefits. First, if you hit with a melee weapon or natural weapon, you can make an immediate grapple attempt against a smaller creature. Second, while grappling, you can either grapple normally, or grapple with the limb that made the attack; if the latter, you take a -20 penalty to the grapple, but - here's the key - you are not considered grappled, only your victim is. That means that the limitations on actions that normally apply while grappled apply to your target, not to you.

So, because the user of Improved Grab is not considered grappled, he is able to take actions normally. That includes using his remaining attacks normally.

Greater Multigrab doesn't change that; it simply removes the -20 penalty.

But, in answer to your question: Yes, while using the Improved Grab ability to grapple an enemy with one limb, the rules of "While Being Grappled" do not apply to you.

[The Viscount]

Just to clarify grapple a bit more, constrict would apply only when you would take the action "damage your opponent" from the actions list when grappling, and if you have improved grab, you add the damage for that natural weapon to the damage dealt by constrict.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Second: When is constrict damage applied? I mean, it says you deal constrict damage on a succesful grapple check, but does that mean that if an opponent tries to escape a grapple on his turn and he fails you deal damage to him?

While Red Fel has the right of it on the rest, I'm gonna disagree with him on this one.

Not only are you definitely making a grapple check when you make an opposed grapple check for an oppenent trying to do something, both what I know of grappling and how constrictor snakes work IRL -also- tell me that vigorously attempting to wriggle free makes things worse for the vicitim unless they succeed. Since not all of the actions one takes in a grapple require opposed rolls, this really does not strike me as an unreasonable interpretation at all.

Same goes for spikes.

[Fizban]

And I'll potentially disagree with this part:

That said, the number of actions you can perform while grappling is dictated by your BAB; that is, "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." Thus, you can perform multiple one-attacks based on your BAB. If you have a +11 BAB, for instance, that's three attacks, so you could perform three natural weapon attacks, or three unarmed attacks, or one of each and a pin attempt, or whatever combination you choose.
Due to the rest of the "attack your opponent" maneuver regarding natural weapons:

A creature can attack with only one of its natural weapons on its turn while grappling, unless it has a special ability that allows it to do otherwise or its description provides an exception. This attack is usually made with the creature’s primary natural weapon.
This can be read both ways. The first line, "with only one of its natural weapons," does not necessarily restrict them to a single attack, and allows for the scenario Red Fel described.

But the second line begins with, "This attack," implying the intent is that one can only make a single natural weapon attack while grappling. Which is reinforced by the general full attack rule that you can only attack once per turn with a given natural weapon. This interpretation matches better with most monster abilities: swallow whole on big things with single bite attacks, because they only have the one attack, constrict allowing multiple damage hits for things not big enough to swallow whole, rake for things that have extra limbs instead of sinuous bodies, and monsters that only have improved grab mostly just grab on and pin or thrash you.

It's also mostly obviated by the Improved Grab entry already:

Whenever the creature makes a successful grapple check to deal damage, it deals the damage indicated for the natural weapon that it used to make the improved grab. If the creature also has the constrict ability, it deals damage from the constrict attack in addition to damage dealt by the natural weapon used to grab.
Which allows you to use the grapple check->damage multiple times for natural weapon damage without jumping through any other hoops. Monsters without any sort of grappling ability at all shouldn't be very good at grappling.

Allowing one to hack around the normal one attack per natural weapon limit by grappling makes some monsters (such the Purple Worm) more dangerous when natural weapons designed for 1/turn use (the poison sting) can be used multiple times, and makes other monsters that don't have grappling abilities more dangerous in a grapple when it might otherwise be a safer position. It is more suited for a more optimized game where PCs can survive that sort of upgrade/monsters need it to compete, otherwise I'd say the existing grapple abilities are plenty threatening enough.

[bootzin]

Improved Grab (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_improvedgrab&alpha=I) gives several benefits. First, if you hit with a melee weapon or natural weapon, you can make an immediate grapple attempt against a smaller creature. Second, while grappling, you can either grapple normally, or grapple with the limb that made the attack; if the latter, you take a -20 penalty to the grapple, but - here's the key - you are not considered grappled, only your victim is. That means that the limitations on actions that normally apply while grappled apply to your target, not to you.

So, because the user of Improved Grab is not considered grappled, he is able to take actions normally. That includes using his remaining attacks normally.

Regarding the bold part: The Improved Grab ability from a giant squid says "To use this ability, a giant squid must hit an opponent of any size with a tentacle attack". Does that mean I can start a grapple against a creature of any size? I know that if he is 2 or more size categories larger than the squid it fails the opposed strength check, but according to this wording, the squid could grapple a gargantuan creature, couldn't it?

As for the underlined: That doesn't mean I could use the rest of my natural attacks against the grappled opponent, does it?


While Red Fel has the right of it on the rest, I'm gonna disagree with him on this one.

Not only are you definitely making a grapple check when you make an opposed grapple check for an oppenent trying to do something, both what I know of grappling and how constrictor snakes work IRL -also- tell me that vigorously attempting to wriggle free makes things worse for the vicitim unless they succeed. Since not all of the actions one takes in a grapple require opposed rolls, this really does not strike me as an unreasonable interpretation at all.

Same goes for spikes.
While I agree with you, I don't think there's any RAW source to this, is there? It would be a bit hard to convince our DM with RAI

[Fizban]

Regarding the bold part: The Improved Grab ability from a giant squid says "To use this ability, a giant squid must hit an opponent of any size with a tentacle attack". Does that mean I can start a grapple against a creature of any size? I know that if he is 2 or more size categories larger than the squid it fails the opposed strength check, but according to this wording, the squid could grapple a gargantuan creature, couldn't it?
If the squid's entry says it can improved grab creatures of any size, it can improved grab creatures of any size, specific trumps general.

As for the underlined: That doesn't mean I could use the rest of my natural attacks against the grappled opponent, does it?
Yes, it does, that's what he was saying. If you take -20, you can make all the rest of your attacks. You don't gain any extra actions, so if you grab a guy and attack someone else you're then the grabbed guy is mostly just grabbed-unless there are other abilities in play.

While I agree with you, I don't think there's any RAW source to this, is there? It would be a bit hard to convince our DM with RAI
The general constrict rules aren't what causes damage on every check. That's part of the specific phrasing of almost every monster's version of constrict:

On a successful grapple check, a constrictor snake deals 1d3+4 points of damage.
Which in its most natural reading, causes damage every time the snake succeeds at a check. Red Fel is focusing on the difference between defensively opposing and offensive initiating, but in the end the roll is an opposed check and whoever succeeds just succeeded at a grapple check.

I'm pretty sure if there is a definition of opposed rolls, it's not phrased with a different between initiator/defender, so it's up to the DM to decide if winning an opposed roll means you succeeded and thus get constrict, or if failing to break out only counts as you not winning. I'm with Kelb on the intent, it makes perfect sense for snakes at least, but it does make constricting monsters way stronger-and then you look at a lot of constricting monsters such as the constrictor snake, and they're really weak to begin with. So I figure it's supposed to trigger even and especially when people try to escape, and if there are later printed monsters that are too strong because of this, it's probably because whoever wrote them didn't understand that and made it too strong.

[Uncle Pine]

Which in its most natural reading, causes damage every time the snake succeeds at a check. Red Fel is focusing on the difference between defensively opposing and offensive initiating, but in the end the roll is an opposed check and whoever succeeds just succeeded at a grapple check.

I'm pretty sure if there is a definition of opposed rolls, it's not phrased with a different between initiator/defender, so it's up to the DM to decide if winning an opposed roll means you succeeded and thus get constrict, or if failing to break out only counts as you not winning. I'm with Kelb on the intent, it makes perfect sense for snakes at least, but it does make constricting monsters way stronger-and then you look at a lot of constricting monsters such as the constrictor snake, and they're really weak to begin with. So I figure it's supposed to trigger even and especially when people try to escape, and if there are later printed monsters that are too strong because of this, it's probably because whoever wrote them didn't understand that and made it too strong.
For what anecdotal evidence may be worth, this is how I've been running it thus far.

[The Viscount]

The Rules Compendium actually does help for this, in one of the rare instances.


A creature that has this extraordinary special attack can crush an opponent, dealing bludgeoning damage, after making a successful grapple check to deal damage.

Very straightforward. If you make a grapple check to deal damage (one of the actions when grappling) you deal this damage. It also mentions you add imp grab damage if you have it (almost all monsters with constrict do).

[Kelb_Panthera]

While I agree with you, I don't think there's any RAW source to this, is there? It would be a bit hard to convince our DM with RAI

Same source as the alternate reading. It's a matter of interpretation.

As for the RC passage, that may have been intended as a clarification but it utterly fails to do so because it lacks any kind of exclusivity language. It already, obviously triggered on a grapple attempt to deal damage and that passage doesn't say that's the only circumstance in which it applies. It's not even a disagreement in the rules to trigger the primary source rules FFS.

[The Viscount]

Same source as the alternate reading. It's a matter of interpretation.

As for the RC passage, that may have been intended as a clarification but it utterly fails to do so because it lacks any kind of exclusivity language. It already, obviously triggered on a grapple attempt to deal damage and that passage doesn't say that's the only circumstance in which it applies. It's not even a disagreement in the rules to trigger the primary source rules FFS.

Exclusivity language isn't common for describing combat abilities. If the rules only mention you being able to do something in one instance, it stands to reason it wouldn't activate in other instances.
Spirited Charge doesn't say "if and only if you are charging you deal double damage" it simply says "you deal double damage on a charge."

[Kelb_Panthera]

Exclusivity language isn't common for describing combat abilities. If the rules only mention you being able to do something in one instance, it stands to reason it wouldn't activate in other instances.
Spirited Charge doesn't say "if and only if you are charging you deal double damage" it simply says "you deal double damage on a charge."

Charging is a specific action that is mutually exclusive with other actions. It doesn't need extra, exclusionary language.

Making a grapple check is -always- part of one of several other actions

The constrict ability says you do the listed damage when you make a grapple check. If it's meant to only be used with one, specific action that calls for a grapple check, it needs exclusionary language to specify -only- that particular action. A clarification would need to -add- that exclusionary language, not just repeat something that was already unambiguously true.

There's an argument to be made that it was -intended- to create such an exclusive use but that does not make it unambiguously true and it certainly fails to do so without reading into intent.

Frankly, grappling doesn't need the nerf.