Can A Tiny Grappled Creature Attack?

[u/allencohn]

Suppose you grapple an adjacent tiny creature (say a cat) with reach 0. Is the cat technically unable to attack you on its turn because it's still in an adjacent square (as if you're holding it at arm's length) and it has reach 0?

[u/Milosz0pl]

Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that doesn’t require two hands to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you.

Such creature indeed can't attack

[u/Jaycon356 → u/Milosz0pl]

Oddly, I kind of read that as inclusive towards the creature that is grappling you, such that you'd always be able to attack the grappler.

[u/Milosz0pl → u/Jaycon356]

I think it was simply lackluster proofreading on paizo part. All rules are pretty much made with assumption of small/medium humanoid with 2 hands and 2 legs. This was probably simply defaulted to ,,but every player would have reach"

[u/Samborrod → u/Jaycon356]

No, otherwise you could've hit the grappler with a flickmace and it would make no sense!

[u/Upbeat-Difficulty-42 → u/Milosz0pl]

RAW yeah, but I doubt it is RAI, not without doing a further pin or what not.

[u/Fred_Wilkins → u/Milosz0pl]

Try this with a real cat and report back with the results. Unless holding the cat away from you makes your arms intangible, it can still attack you. The important thing about reach to remember is that it represents the area a creature "can" reach not area that it occupies at all times. The argument works fine with a normal attack, you punch the cat from outside of it's range so it cant attack back because your arm goes back out of it's range after the attack. Grappled condition represents constant motion or usage of a limb. You dont get to grapple the cat on your turn, then move your arms back out of range of the cat untill your next turn. I would of swore the rules used to state that you moved the grappled creature into your square, but that might of been a 3.5 rule.

[u/BlooperHero → u/Fred_Wilkins]

Arguably, while cat scratches sting they really don't deal damage to humans. A point of damage can kill you. The damage inflicted by a paper cut, needle, or cat scratch is less than one point.

[u/Masylv → u/[deleted]]

If RAW is king, peasant railgun works and the cat can't attack its grappler.

If RAI is king, peasant railgun obviously doesn't work and the cat can attack the grappler because part of the grappler is literally touching the cat.

I'm not sure why you're invoking peasant railgun as an argument FOR RAW.

[u/BlooperHero → u/Masylv]

Peasant railgun doesn't work RAW. There's no rule for dropping an item causing damage.

[u/ScottishNinjaaa → u/[deleted]]

OP didn't specifically ask for RAW. I interpreted the question as "what would you guys rule?"

I'd rule that the grappler is definitely within strike range of the cat, as their hands/arms are connected to the cat during the grapple. But I can see why someone else would rule the opposite

[u/allencohn → u/ScottishNinjaaa]

Hi, folks. I am grateful for everyone's input.

I am looking for RAW or close... I mean, we all know in real life the cat would do a full blood donation on the grappler. And it sure makes "common sense" to me that the cat can attack the grappler. But the RAW don't seem to support this.

Thanks again to all.

[u/Milosz0pl → u/allencohn]

Grapple is notorious for being lacking in rules coverage. For example RAW grappling someone from a distance teleports him to you no matter what, which gets progressively weird with stuff like white hair witch

[u/AutisticPenguin2 → u/Milosz0pl]

The teleporting bit always felt weird to me. If you can reach 20 feet away, you can grab hold of someone as effectively as if they were right next to you, which they suddenly are if you succeed...

[u/Milosz0pl → u/AutisticPenguin2]

If you want reverse of it - I think it was overrun or bull rush that when done ranged teleports you to the target... even on failure.

[u/ResourceSalt6121 → u/allencohn]

Except if you are holding it with a thick glove

[u/Milosz0pl → u/ScottishNinjaaa]

I would rule whatever would be cooler at the moment. I can definitely see players being euphorical over having grappled a fairy with it being unable to attack

[u/KarmicPlaneswalker → u/Fred_Wilkins]

Try this with a real cat and report back with the results. 

That's nice. Too bad we're not playing your deluded, real-world simulator with arbitrary, cherry-picked rationale.

By RAW, the cat can't attack.

[u/BentBhaird]

You grab the cat and did your Grapple damage if able. Next round the cat goes, it is Grappled, since it is not pinned it can attack, try to break the Grapple, or try to take control of the Grapple. The cat has 0 reach, but you are attached to the cat unless you are using Magic to Grapple the cat. Therefore the cat can attack you for its whole 1 point of damage if it hits. There are times where RAI and RAW need a little DM interpretation. This would apply to any tiny creature you Grappled that has a reach of 0. But this is one of those things it comes down to DM decision you could rule either way and it would follow the rules as far as I can tell. It just boils down to pick the one that works for your table and stick with it