 grappling creature can do.
In addition, using this option of improved grab doesn't make the owlbear grappled. Because of this, the owlbear would be able to do any actions that creatures that are grappling could not do, as long as it doesn't require the body part that he is using to grapple the creature.
As GreySage pointed out:

In other words, the monster IS grappling, and so can take appropriate actions, but is NOT grappled, and so doesn't take the penalties.

 Q:

Is it required to call base method when deriving from TObject?

I have a class that descents from TObject, if I do not call the parent method, is it bad? I ask because when looking at TObject.Create/Destroy, they do nothing.
That's why we override/expose them ourselves.
There's no code example, I just want to make sure.

A:

The most common behaviour is to call inherited. So if I explicitly do not want the inherited behaviour, I do not call inherited. Otherwise, I do. If the inherited behaviour is a no-op like TObject.Create/Destroy, I still call inherited.
Note also that the situtation for constructors and destructors is perhaps a little different than for other methods. It's exceptionally rare that you would need to skip a call to the inherited method. I cannot think of an example. Invariably constructors are creating and destroying other objects, so how could you contemplate skipping that?
I know that some authors write code that omits inherited when deriving directly from TObject, because they know that the implementation in TObject does nothing. I do not like that and to me it is a mistake to do that. The implementation details of TObject should not be leaking into derived classes.  
I'm pretty sure that TObject.Create/Destroy will always be no-ops. If Embarcadero changed that then so much code would break. But what about one of your classes. Suppose you have a class derived from TObject. And then you have another class derived from that:
TMyClass1 = class
 ....
end;

TMyClass2 = class(TMyClass)
 ....
end;

You have no constructor for TMyClass1 and a constructor for TMyClass2 that looks like this:
constructor TMyClass2.Create
grappling creature can do. 
 In addition, use this choice of improved grab doesn't produce the owlbear grapple. Because of this, the owlbear would be able to do any actions that creatures that are grapple could not practice, as long as it doesn't necessitate the body part that he is use to grapple the creature. 
 As GreySage point out: 

 In early words, the monster IS wrestle, and so can take appropriate action, but is NOT grappled, and so doesn't take the penalty. 

  Q: 

 Is it required to call base method when deduce from TObject? 

 I have a class that descents from TObject, if I do not call the parent method, is it regretful? I ask because when looking at TObject. Create / Destroy, they do nothing. 
 That's why we override / expose them ourselves. 
 There's no code example, I barely want to make sure. 

 A: 

 The most common behaviour is to call inherited. So if I explicitly do not want the inherit behaviour, I do not call familial. differently, I do. If the inherited behaviour is a no - op like TObject. Create / Destroy, I however call inherited. 
 Note also that the situtation for builder and destructors is perhaps a little different than for other methods. It's exceptionally rare that you would need to skip a call to the inherited method. I cannot think of an example. constantly constructors are create and demolish other objects, so how could you contemplate skipping that? 
 I acknowledge that some authors write code that omits inherit when deriving directly from TObject, because they know that the implementation in TObject dress nothing. I do not like that and to me it is a error to do that. The implementation details of TObject should not be leaking into derived class.  
 I'm pretty indisputable that TObject. Create / Destroy will always be no - ops. If Embarcadero transfer that then so much code would break. But what about one of your classes. Suppose you have a course derived from TObject. And then you have another class derive from that: 
 TMyClass1 = class 
 .... 
 end; 

 TMyClass2 = class(TMyClass) 
 .... 
 end; 

 You have no constructor for TMyClass1 and a builder for TMyClass2 that looks like this: 
 constructor TMyClass2.Create
 grwppling creature can do.
Ik addition, using this o'tion or improvdd grab doesn't make the owlbxar trappoed. Because of this, thd owlbear would bw abow to do anb actions that greatbrxs that are grakpling could not do, as lonc xs it doesn't require the body part thwt he ix ksing to grappje tnq crsature.
As GreySage pointed out:

In otger worvs, the monster OS grappling, and so can tane aopropriate actions, but is NOT gra[pled, and so aoesn't takt che penaltigs.

 Q:

Is it required to call base oethob when dericibg vtom TObject?

I have a class thab descetts frok TObject, if I do nor call the parent metiod, is it bad? I ask fecause wveu looking at TObject.Ceeqte/Devtrof, thdt du nktiinf.
That's whb we overrise/expose thwm ourselves.
There's mo bpde example, J just wwnt to make sure.

A:

The most common behavimur is to call inherited. Si if I explicitly do jot want ehe inherited behaviour, I do not call inherited. Odherwmsd, I dj. Uf the inherited behaviour is a no-op like TObjesf.Cteste/Destroy, I sbill call inheritec.
Nltr also that thg situtcfikn for constructord and dgstrucrors is ptrhapx a little different than fir other metkodw. It's exceptionallv rare that vou woold nerd to skip a call to thz inhedited methof. I cannof think of an exaoplv. Ineariably constructors are sreating end dzstroyine otner obtects, so hlw comnd you contemplate skipking tvat?
I know hhat some authors write code thev omits inherotad fhen dernving cirectly from TObject, becauxe they know that the pmplementetion in TObtect does notvlng. I do not like thwt abd ti me it ks a mistake tp do that. The implenentation details pf JOgject should noc ve leaking into defivqd ckafves.  
I'm pretdy sjre yhat GObject.Creabe/Ddstrpy will always be no-mps. Jf Embarcadero chamgcd that tyen so mtch code woulc break. But what ahout mne of ypur classes. Suppose you have a clzss derivfd nrom TObject. Wnd bhen you have cnother class derived from that:
TMyClass1 = class
 ....
end;

TMyClass2 = class(TMyClass)
 ....
end;

Iou have no coistruceor for TKyClass1 and a constryctor for TMyClasx2 that looks like thia:
constsuctog TMyClass2.Create
grappling creature can do. In addition, using of grab doesn't the owlbear grappled. would able to do actions that creatures are grappling could not do, as as it doesn't require the body part that he is using to grapple creature. As GreySage pointed out: In other words, the monster IS grappling, and can appropriate but NOT grappled, and so doesn't take the penalties. Q: Is it required to call base method deriving from TObject? I have a class that from TObject, if I not call the parent method, it I ask when at they do nothing. why we override/expose them ourselves. There's no code example, I just want to make sure. A: The common behaviour call inherited. if explicitly not want the I do not call inherited. Otherwise, the inherited behaviour is a no-op like TObject.Create/Destroy, still call Note also that the situtation for and destructors is perhaps a little different than other methods. It's exceptionally rare that you would need to skip a call to the I cannot think of example. Invariably constructors creating destroying objects, how could contemplate skipping that? I know that some authors write code that inherited when deriving directly from TObject, because they know that in does nothing. I not like that and me is a mistake to The details not leaking derived classes. I'm pretty that TObject.Create/Destroy will always be If Embarcadero changed that break. But what about one of your classes. you have a class derived from TObject. then you have another class derived from that: TMyClass1 = class .... TMyClass2 = end; You have no constructor for TMyClass1 and constructor for TMyClass2 that like this: constructor TMyClass2.Create
 grappling creature can do.
In aDdition, usiNg thiS opTioN oF impRoveD grab doesn't makE The oWlbear grappled. Because oF this, ThE OwlbEAr Would Be able tO Do ANY acTiOnS thAt CReAtureS thAt are grAppling couLd nOt Do, as long as it DOeSn't require The Body part that He iS using To GraPPle thE crEaturE.
As GreYsage poInted out:

IN oTHer worDS, the monSTEr iS grAppling, and so can taKE aPPropriate actioNs, but iS Not gRAPplEd, aNd so doesn't TaKe the PEnaltieS.

 q:

IS IT ReqUIred to call basE method when DEriVing frOm tObJEct?

I haVe a clAsS ThaT descents frOm TOBject, if I dO not caLL the parENt methoD, is it bAd? I Ask BecaUSe WhEn lOoKIng AT TobjECt.CReate/DesTrOy, They dO notHING.
that'S whY we oVerriDe/expose them oUrsElveS.
theRe's no Code eXampLe, i just Want to Make sUrE.

A:

The most common BehaViour is to CalL iNheRiTed. So IF I explIciTly Do not waNt the inHEriTeD BEHaViour, I do not call inhErITEd. otherwisE, I do. If THe InHErited beHaVioUr is A NO-op liKe TOBJeCt.Create/destroY, i sTiLl call iNhErited.
noTe aLso That tHE sitUtatioN for consTructORs and destructoRS is perhaps a liTTlE DIfFErenT thAn for other mEthoDS. It's ExcePTiOnaLLy rarE that YoU WoULd need to skip a call to ThE inherIted mEthod. I cannot tHink of an exAMPLe. InvariAbly COnSTructors are creAting And destroyINg other oBjectS, so how coUld you conTEMplate skIppIng ThaT?
I kNOW tHat some authorS WRite CoDe that oMitS inheriTed WheN deRivInG directly From TObjEcT, bEcAuSe tHey knOW that the ImPleMeNtaTion iN tObjecT does NothInG. I DO noT like thAT aND To me It Is A misTakE tO do thAt. ThE ImpLementaTion detaiLs oF tObjEcT sHould noT be leaking intO dErived clasSeS.  
I'm Pretty SURe that TOBject.Create/Destroy will aLWays be nO-opS. If EmBarcAdero chanGed That thEn sO Much coDe woulD breaK. BUt wHAT abouT ONe Of yOuR classes. SuPPOse You haVe A claSs derivEd from TObject. And thEN yoU have another cLasS derIVEd FroM ThAT:
TMYCLAss1 = CLAss
 ....
end;

TMyClass2 = cLass(TMyClaSs)
 ....
ENd;

you have no cONstRuCtor for tMyClasS1 and a COnstrucTor for TMyclass2 that LoOks lIKE thIs:
construcTor TMyClAss2.Create
 grappling creature can do .
In addit ion,usi ngth is o ptio n of improvedg rabdoesn't make the owlbe ar gr ap p led. Be cause  of thi s ,t h e o wl be arwo u ld  be a ble  to doany action s t ha t creaturest ha t are grap pli ng could not  do , as l on g a s  it d oes n't r equire the bo dy part t ha t  he is using t o gr appl e the creature.
A s  G r eySage pointed  out:
I n  o t h erwor ds, the mo ns ter I S  grappl i ng , a nds o can take ap propriate a c tio ns, bu tisN OT gra ppled ,a ndso doesn'ttake  the pena lties. 
 Q:

I s  it req uiredtocal l ba s eme tho dw hen de riv i ngfrom TOb je ct ?

Ihave a c lass  th at d escen ts from TObje ct,  ifI  do  notcallthepa rentmethod , isit  bad? I ask bec ause  when loo kin gatTO bject . Create /De str oy, the y do no t hin g. T h at 's why we override /e x p os e them o urselv e s. 
T h ere's no  c ode  exa m p le, I  jus t  w ant to m ake su r e. 
A:

The  m ost co mm onbeh aviou r  isto cal l inheri ted.S o if I explici t ly do not wan t  t h e  i n heri ted  behaviour,  I d o  not  cal l  i nhe r ited.  Othe rw i se ,  I do. If the inher it ed beh aviou r is a no-oplike TObje c t . Create/D estr o y, I still call i nheri ted.
Notea lso that  thesitutati on for co n s tructors  an d d est ruc t o rs  is perhaps a l ittl ediffere ntthan fo r o the r m eth od s. It's e xception al ly  r ar e t hat y o u wouldne edto  sk ip ac all to  theinhe ri te d  me thod. I ca n n ot t hi nk  ofanex ample . In v ari ably co nstructor s a r e cr ea ti ng anddestroying ot he r objects,  s o h ow cou l d  you con template skipping that? I knowtha t som e au thors wri tecode t hat omitsinheri ted w he n d e r iving d ir ect ly  from TObj e c t,becau se  the y knowthat the implement a tio n in TObjectdoe s no t h in g.I  d o  no tl ike t hat and to me i t is a mis ta k eto do that .  Th eimpleme ntation  deta i ls of T Object sh ould notbe  lea k i nginto deriv ed class es.  
I'm prett y  s ure t hat  TObje ct .Cr eate/ Destro y  wi ll al ways b eno-ops . IfEm barcader o changed that then somuch c ode w oul d break.But wha t about o ne o f your cla sse s.Suppo sey ou ha ve a cl ass deriv ed f r om TObjec t .And t he n you havea n o the r cla ssd erived  fro m that:
TMyClass1 = class
 ....end; TMy Cla s s2 =  c lass(TMyClass) 
 . .. . end;

Yo uhave no con structor  f o r TMy Class1  and a  constr u c to r  for T MyCl ass 2 that lo oks  l i ke this :co n struct or T My Class2 .Creat e 
 grappling_creature can_do.
In addition, using this_option of_improved_grab doesn't_make_the owlbear grappled._Because of this,_the owlbear would be_able to do_any_actions that creatures that are grappling could not do, as long as it doesn't_require_the body_part_that_he is using to grapple_the creature.
As GreySage pointed out:

In_other words,_the monster IS grappling, and so can take_appropriate_actions, but is_NOT grappled, and so doesn't take the penalties.

 Q:

Is_it required to call base method_when deriving from_TObject?

I_have_a class that descents_from TObject, if I do not_call the parent method, is it_bad? I ask because when looking at_TObject.Create/Destroy, they do nothing.
That's why we_override/expose them ourselves.
There's no code_example, I_just want to make sure.

A:

The_most common behaviour_is to_call inherited. So_if I explicitly do not want_the inherited behaviour,_I do not call inherited. Otherwise,_I_do. If the_inherited_behaviour_is a_no-op like TObject.Create/Destroy,_I_still call_inherited.
Note_also that the situtation for constructors_and_destructors is perhaps a little different than_for other methods. It's_exceptionally_rare that you would_need to skip a call_to the inherited method. I cannot_think of_an example._Invariably constructors are creating and destroying other objects, so how could_you contemplate skipping that?
I know that_some authors write code_that omits_inherited_when deriving directly_from_TObject, because_they know that the implementation in TObject_does nothing._I do not like that and_to me it is_a_mistake to do that. The implementation_details of TObject should not be_leaking into derived classes. _
I'm_pretty_sure that TObject.Create/Destroy will always_be no-ops. If Embarcadero changed that_then so much_code would break. But what about one_of_your classes. Suppose you have a_class_derived from TObject. And then you_have_another_class derived from that:
TMyClass1 =_class
 ....
end;

TMyClass2 = class(TMyClass)
 ....
end;

You have_no constructor for TMyClass1 and a constructor for TMyClass2_that looks like_this:
constructor TMyClass2.Create