In working on the text for the Child of Nasga monster entry in L&E, I noticed an ambiguity in the text of the Giant Python entry (from which it borrows). Rather than import an ambiguity I'd like to correct it; but I'd like to correct it in the way that accords with how it's being resolved in actual play.
Here is the ambiguous language:
Python, Giant: attacks: 2 (bite, constrict).
It attacks first with a bite, and on a successful hit it is also able to constrict a victim for an additional 2d8 points of damage. The constriction continues on subsequent rounds. The hold may be broken with a successful saving throw versus Paralyzation; breaking the hold takes a full round.
The ambiguity leans on the phrasing "on a successful hit...is also able to constrict" in conjunction with "attacks: 2 (bite, constrict)". I see three possible interpretations:
If the python successfully bites, it automatically hits with the constriction. If it misses with the bite, it may still make a constriction attack, but it does not automatically hit.
If the python successfully bites, it automatically hits with the constriction attack. If it misses with the bite, it may not make a constriction attack at all.
If the python successfully bites, it may make a constriction attack, but it does not automatically hit. If it misses with the bite, it may not make a constriction attack at all.
Option #1 treats them as two separate attacks, with a special benefit that the second attack hits automatically if the first attack hits. This is in accordance with the entry's line "attacks 2 (bite, constrict)" but allow the constriction on a failed bite doesn't seem to jive with "is also able".
Option #2 treats the constriction like the bear's hug. This does not seem compatible with the line "attacks 2" nor with "is also able" but nevertheless seems like a natural reading of how the monster should work.
Option #3 treats them as two separate attacks, with a special drawback that the second attack cannot proceed if the first attack is not a success. This is in accordance with both the line "attacks 2" and with the "is also able" language. But it's the weakest of the three, and it seems odd that a python can *only* constrict if it bites.
I'm relatively confident constrictors only constrict after a successful bite in nature - bites can be used a a defensive action where the snake is not looking to feed, but the bite+constrict is a built-in reflex for a feeding action - instinct.
My thought from seeing it in action is that the bite is a grounding grab to allow the snake a rooted point to constrict from - the bite is the "arms" of the bear hug, then the squeeze is put on.
So...option #2 or #3, in my view
#2 if you consider the save vs Paralysis to be the inversion/replacement for the attack throw for the constriction is still technically compatible with the "Attacks: 2" language.
#3, while the weakest, coincides closest with natural behavior. I've read tales of pet snakes dying from a botched bite-n-constrict of live feed - a poorly placed bite allowed the prey to fight back with fatal results (the save vs paralysis succeeded, in other words). It's voluntarily initiating a grapple with only superficial knowledge of the capabilities of it's prey to fight back - a dangerous way to eat.
And it shouldn't preclude a python constricting-to-kill a helpless foe without a bite (or immediately beginning to swallow a dead target) which shouldn't require an attack throw anyway.
Another way to think about it is it's a very specialized Wrestling attack - requires a successful attack throw (without penalty), grants a save vs paralysis in the following round.
That being said, a fully sapient/intelligent snake may be able to judge if a creature is able to be taken by constriction safely without the supporting bite attack, but if that's the case the attack line should be written distinctly from the python's to avoid confusion (and perhaps with supporting text "Unlike it's unintelligent natural mirror, the python, the Child of Nasga may attempt to constrict a weakly armed foe without a bite, in order to maximize it's enjoyment of its foe's death..."
OK! Between the comments here and on G+ it's near-universal for #2 with a minority opinion for #3 and no votes for #1.
Giant Python: On a successful bite, it also constricts the victim for an additional 2d8 points of damage. Thereafter, constriction continues on subsequent rounds. A constricted character may break the snake's hold with a successful saving throw versus Paralyzation; breaking the hold takes a full round during which no other actions can be made.
I'd like to add my voice to the minority opinion that a character should get a save vs. paralysis to avoid the initial constriction after a successful bite, rather than the constriction being automatic and the save occurring only in subsequent rounds.
I was going to say that I also have the minority opinion of option 3 because with option 2, where the constrict occurs automatically and cannot be done separately from the bite, it just feels like an extension of the bite.
Instead of feeling like separate bite and constrict attacks, it feels like the python would just have a bite that deals an enormous amount of damage and constricts the opponent.
But then I looked up the python’s XP value and bite damage, and without the constrict being a powerful and reliable attack for it, those stats are not strong at all. So I changed my mind and I agree with #2 as the option, every bite constricts, because without it, that python is dealing out a single attack for 1d4 damage a round as a 5* HD creature.
By L&E, the Giant Python's bite is undersized - a Small Bite would be 1d10 (then 2d4+1 and 2d6 going up) - it's doing Claw or Tail damage at 1d4.
It has the Hug (if the monster hits with more than half it's attacks, it deals additional damage; 2d8 if Large) and Grab* (victims of the primary attack must save vs Paralysis or be grabbed, which is implied as the second round of the hug in this case...)