PDA

View Full Version : Whatīs the Obsession with Grapple rules?



Kioran
2007-08-17, 04:36 AM
Honestly!

In the 4th Ed trailer, in the wish list, practically everywhere, people complain about grappling or the Grapple rules being overly complicated. Same with the other combat special maneuvers (not the ToB usage of the word, I mean Bull Rush etc.) rules. Honestly, I donīt think theyīre quite that complicated.

Iīve used them all, more or less, and itīs just a small something to remember. Of course, Grappling is all kinds of unbalanced right now, with PCs almost incapable of going toe-to-toe with any large Monster, not even the real Hugmonsters, but thereīs nothing wrong with the rule as such as far as I am concerned, just with the balance of it all.

Why do many of you think Grappling is so bad? And what should one do about it? Retool the mechanics? Scrap it entirely?

Overlard
2007-08-17, 04:42 AM
I think the problem isn't that the grapple mechanic is complicated, it's that it's cumbersome. It's grapple check after grapple check after grapple check, for whatever you want to do. So no matter what you want to do, unless you're specifically ready for a grapple (with the stats for it or a verbal-only spell), you're screwed.

I also think that section of the book is written quite poorly. I think bulletpoints on such a thing would help a lot, and cut down on the need for interpretation.

Orzel
2007-08-17, 04:51 AM
Grapple check, Grapple check, Grapple check, Grapple check, Grapple check

Wait I'm bigger than you

Fail, Release, Squish, Maim, Breath Weapon

Using you are big, focus heavily on it, or don't use your hands; grappling is annoying, cumbersome, and leads to bludgeoning-based heartbreak.

Artemician
2007-08-17, 05:33 AM
IMHO, Grappling mechanics are so maligned because they somehow manage to be abusable AND weak at the same time. In addition to being cumbersome.

If you want to be a focused grappler, you will completely destroy non-grappling focused opposition without even giving them a chance to fight back. Unless they are big. Or have Freedom of Movement. In which case you die.

If you are NOT focused on grappling, it's so weak as to be useless. You have to make so many checks to do stuff, odds are you're going to roll badly eventually.

And as Orzel said earlier, they're just so many checks you need to make that it also slows down gameplay and makes people annoyed.

Leicontis
2007-08-17, 08:34 AM
That really is the heart of the problem - grappling is powerful enough that it unbalances combat. Normally a high-level wizard is a very dangerous fight - not if you have a grappler! Unless the wizard can stay out of reach, the instant the grappler gets a hold, combat is effectively over, but there's still a lot of rolling to do.

I will say that even non-specialists (like a human rogue with 12 strength) can make grappling useful in the right circumstances. When fighting a small, nimble, annoying creature (in this case an imp) grappling can pin the target down and allow the rest of the party to commence gangbeating.

As someone who actually has grappling training IRL, I'd say the mechanics as they stand are a reasonable representation of RL grappling, except for the Reaping Mauler's "Sleeper Hold" ability. At least with what I've been taught, knocking someone out without killing them is a tricky challenge in a grapple. I only know of one hold that would actually lead to a KO, and there's only a few seconds difference between conscious, unconscious, and dead.

brian c
2007-08-17, 08:53 AM
That really is the heart of the problem - grappling is powerful enough that it unbalances combat. Normally a high-level wizard is a very dangerous fight - not if you have a grappler! Unless the wizard can stay out of reach, the instant the grappler gets a hold, combat is effectively over, but there's still a lot of rolling to do.

I will say that even non-specialists (like a human rogue with 12 strength) can make grappling useful in the right circumstances. When fighting a small, nimble, annoying creature (in this case an imp) grappling can pin the target down and allow the rest of the party to commence gangbeating.

As someone who actually has grappling training IRL, I'd say the mechanics as they stand are a reasonable representation of RL grappling, except for the Reaping Mauler's "Sleeper Hold" ability. At least with what I've been taught, knocking someone out without killing them is a tricky challenge in a grapple. I only know of one hold that would actually lead to a KO, and there's only a few seconds difference between conscious, unconscious, and dead.

Actually, my main problem with grappling, ironically, is that spellcasters and everyone else can avoid it all together with a ring of Freedom of Movement, which by RAW makes you immune to being grappled. Pretty dumb to write so many grapple rules and then make it so easy to avoid. The only thing that's really confusing about grapple is how to make attacks in it.

Quietus
2007-08-17, 09:45 AM
I don't find Grapple or the other special attacks confusing at all. They all follow a general format :

Attack of Opportunity
Touch Attack
Some opposed attack roll or strength check
Result



Now, I do think that the ones that require an attack-roll-esque thing could fold that into the touch attack; If your Grapple check doesn't beat their touch AC, it doesn't matter what they rolled, you simply failed to get hold of them, for instance. If your Disarm or Sunder attack roll doesn't hit their touch AC, you fail to strike their weapon. That leaves us with :

AoO (Which you can remove with a feat)
Opposed roll
Result

The part that adds complication is knowing the modifiers, but that's not tough either. If it's something that requires an attack roll (Sunder, Disarm), you modify your roll by 4 points depending on what weapon you're wielding, and by 4 points for each size category you are larger than your opponent. The other battlefield-modifying special attacks modify your roll by 4 for size difference only.

Where's the complication?

Overlard
2007-08-17, 09:55 AM
I don't find Grapple or the other special attacks confusing at all. They all follow a general format :

Attack of Opportunity
Touch Attack
Some opposed attack roll or strength check
Result



Now, I do think that the ones that require an attack-roll-esque thing could fold that into the touch attack; If your Grapple check doesn't beat their touch AC, it doesn't matter what they rolled, you simply failed to get hold of them, for instance. If your Disarm or Sunder attack roll doesn't hit their touch AC, you fail to strike their weapon. That leaves us with :

AoO (Which you can remove with a feat)
Opposed roll
Result

The part that adds complication is knowing the modifiers, but that's not tough either. If it's something that requires an attack roll (Sunder, Disarm), you modify your roll by 4 points depending on what weapon you're wielding, and by 4 points for each size category you are larger than your opponent. The other battlefield-modifying special attacks modify your roll by 4 for size difference only.

Where's the complication?
As said above, the complication is the grapple roll after grapple roll made on both of the grapplers turns in order for them to do anything at all. It's tedious.

Person_Man
2007-08-17, 10:09 AM
It's very cumbersome. Not one gamer I know can explain it to you off the top of their heads. There's a large number of rolls involved. Once you're grappling, there's a whole new list of things you can do. Once you're pinned, there's another list. Also, there are special conditions - you move into your opponent's square, you're both lose your Dex bonus against other enemies but not against each other, etc.

It should really just be one opposed roll. If you make it, your enemy is grappled, you deal damage, and you're both immobile. On your opponents turn he can he can make an opposed roll to deal damage or escape. That's it. End of story. While it might be logical in the real world sense that you could do lots of other things (pin, stop them from talking, etc) and that all sorts of special conditions might apply, in practice its a game, and the game needs to flow.

mudbunny
2007-08-17, 10:11 AM
My gaming group has one PC who is primarily a grappler. Every time that he grapples, he and the DM pull out a 4 page chart of things that he can do. It really slows down the game.

The scene in the 4th Edition preview is *very* accurate.

its_all_ogre
2007-08-17, 10:23 AM
the size mods are fair i think, although i agree that the system bogs down quickly.
if you do not think they are accurate YOU go and wrestle a tiger, see how likely you are to win!
seriously though IRL a small difference in size (by dnd size standards) makes a lot of difference.

kjones
2007-08-17, 11:57 AM
The problem is that you either rock at it or you suck at it. With most characters, they will either dominate a grapple or be helpless against the first foe with Improved Grab. The disparity between Grapple bonuses, and the ease of getting a substantial one, combined with the fact that blinking while grappled requires a half-dozen opposed rolls, means that statistics rears its ugly head: whoever has the biggest bonus is, simply put, going to win. It's frustrating, unwieldy, and an all-around PITA.

crabpuff
2007-08-17, 12:37 PM
Seriously have any of you ever grappled/wrestled. There is a reason for all the rolls, people resist what you are trying to do, and unless you are incredibly skilled and the other guy a dope it can take a bit of doing. Good example is most MMA fights that go to the ground, imagine the amount of rolls involved there. Now and then some one makes a mistake and gets choked out preety quick , thats the equivilant of the winner rolling a 20 and the loser a 1.

Unless your fighting Will Ferrell and his bottle of oil.

Attilargh
2007-08-17, 12:42 PM
Seriously have any of you ever grappled/wrestled. There is a reason for all the rolls, people resist what you are trying to do, and unless you are incredibly skilled and the other guy a dope it can take a bit of doing.
The same can be said about fencing - or indeed any other competition - as well. In a game of "I grab some bat poo and cast the spell, how much do I roll for damage?", the amount of rolling inherent in grappling is baffling at best.

Spiryt
2007-08-17, 12:46 PM
Seriously have any of you ever grappled/wrestled. There is a reason for all the rolls, people resist what you are trying to do, and unless you are incredibly skilled and the other guy a dope it can take a bit of doing. Good example is most MMA fights that go to the ground, imagine the amount of rolls involved there. Now and then some one makes a mistake and gets choked out preety quick , thats the equivilant of the winner rolling a 20 and the loser a 1.

Unless your fighting Will Ferrell and his bottle of oil.

You are of course right, but it not any argument. Look at the amount of moves involved in swordfight. Punching. Shooting bow/sling reloading crossbow. They're all represented by single roll. So, two solutions - everything is little more complex or grapple is less complex.

Quietus
2007-08-17, 12:49 PM
My gaming group has one PC who is primarily a grappler. Every time that he grapples, he and the DM pull out a 4 page chart of things that he can do. It really slows down the game.

The scene in the 4th Edition preview is *very* accurate.

Then they both need to sit down and read - and memorize - the grappling rules. The people I play with aren't experts on the grapple rules, but we make sure we all know A) What we're allowed to do, in a grapple and B) How to calculate their grapple modifier. If it's more complicated than "Make an opposed grapple. You win, great!", then they refer to me, because I have a couple of characters who make extensive use of the rules, so I sat down and committed them all to memory. If anyone ever wants to work out a grapple in the group, I tell them what to roll (even if I'm not the DM, it's a groupwide agreement that I'm the Grapple Man), and it takes very little extra time. Yes, the old "I slash him with my sword. *Roll*" is faster - it's six words and a slight hand motion. However, that gets BORING. I don't see anyone complaining about the ToB's maneuver system, and how easy it is to get lost in the litany of "I use my Girallion Windmill Flesh Rip boost along with my Dancing Mongoose of Doom Cleaver strike, while in my Stance of Unending Blows." *Rolls 700 dice, starts working out the results, and five minutes later...* "I do 7605 damage, from 896 hits."

see
2007-08-17, 01:03 PM
Given D&D3's armor class, hit points and gnome hooked hammer, "realistic" is not an excuse for "cumbersome"; realism is already out the window. If you want complicated, realistic combat, there's GURPS.

Counterspin
2007-08-17, 01:15 PM
Watching people argue that something isn't confusing to someone who is or has been confused is hilarious. It's like raising you're voice when you're talking to a deaf person.

crabpuff
2007-08-17, 01:15 PM
You are of course right, but it not any argument. Look at the amount of moves involved in swordfight. Punching. Shooting bow/sling reloading crossbow. They're all represented by single roll. So, two solutions - everything is little more complex or grapple is less complex.

It doesn't have to do with the amount of moves, but what is involved in it. Striking isn't easier or harder just different and probably quicker. That's why crowds stand up and go nuts for slug fests, versus long drawn out grappling.

lord_khaine
2007-08-17, 01:20 PM
i think some people overdo it a bit when it comes to the complexity of the grapple rules, we have used them a bit as well, and really all it should take is to sit down, read the rules carefully and then use them a bit.

UglyPanda
2007-08-17, 02:01 PM
Grappling and other special attacks get confusing when performed by monsters who possess different modes of attack/appendages.

horseboy
2007-08-17, 02:22 PM
Given D&D3's armor class, hit points and gnome hooked hammer, "realistic" is not an excuse for "cumbersome"; realism is already out the window. If you want complicated, realistic combat, there's Rolemaster.

Fixed that for you. ;)

brian c
2007-08-17, 02:27 PM
Grappling and other special attacks get confusing when performed by monsters who possess different modes of attack/appendages.

Especially constrict attacks. Didn't it take even Fax and Silvanos a little time to figure out how that giant crab thing worked?

tainsouvra
2007-08-17, 02:31 PM
Really it just comes down to the fact that actual grappling isn't inherently more complicated than any other form of single combat, but the rules for it require far more rolling and special conditions. It's clunky and didn't need to be so.

AjaxTorbin
2007-08-17, 05:21 PM
after having played a grapple character, and now having DM'ed a game with a grappler in it i can speak from both sides of the 'to grapple/not to grapple' thing.
grappling is powerfull. a character baised around it can efectivly elimanate one badguy from the fight, so the DM counters by putting in a bunch of IMP. grapple monsters in the game. thereby screwing the rest of the party who couldn't grapple.
so when it came time to counter my player grappler it was an easy choice for me. Archers. plain, old fashioned archers. shoot 'em. thats how you handle grapplers. yes they're over complicated, and there are a lot of house rules for over coming that, but in the end it's the DM and the player who have to blance it out.

Subotei
2007-08-17, 05:29 PM
I agree there are too many steps involved - what could be done?

I'd say get rid of step three - the opposed grapple roll to hold the opponent - you hit with the grab action therefore you're grappling - and deal unarmed damage for that round. After that then an opposed grapple check for each round - the winner gets to do any of the possible actions, the loser, well, suffers.

This would also lose the extra AoO on the maintain grapple check - seems harsh to provoke 2 AoOs for essentially the same action - once you've grabbed successfully you're within the target's space, end of.

Simple and I'm sure I've overlooked some of the intricacies, but I've had wine, so excuse me.

DraPrime
2007-08-17, 05:35 PM
Yes the grappling rules do require waaaaaaaaay too many rolls, it's still very effective. Sometimes. I've seen many wannabe grapplers go down thanks to ranged attackers.

Aquillion
2007-08-17, 09:15 PM
Well, aside from ranged attacks, the other problems are size, strength, and flying issues. Grappling is fine when you're fighting roughly humanoid-sized, humanoid-strengthed opponents. It isn't so effective against Balors or Dragons... and later on, a significant percentage of the opponents players face are going to be either flying, dramatically bigger than them, or massively stronger than them str-wise.

The bigger problem, though, is that grappling has all this excessive dice-rolling and extra rules and then, when you get down to it... what does it add to the game? Sure, if you can get next to a caster and they don't have FoM from somewhere, you can beat them. So what? Under those conditions (or similar ones), your raging barbarian with a massive enchanted greatsword could beat them just as easily. Under what conditions does grappling offer an improvement over just beating something to death? It could be justified as a flavor thing if it was simple, if you could cover the grappling rules in a short paragraph or two like with trip or disarm, and (at most) one roll total per grapple per round... but there's not enough payoff here to be worth more than that.

I don't think there was enough thought put into how grappling would fit into the game... that's why FoM beats it so completely. Sure, they probably could turn it into something workable, but my gut feeling? Kill it. It always felt like it was badly-grafted onto the rules, and always seemed a little out of place... I think that way back when they just kept running into people during playtesting who kept wanting to grab opponents no matter how many times they were told that there were no rules for it, so they whipped up some quick-and-dirty rules without thinking about how it'd actually play or fit into the game, and it just survived through the editions from that.

It just doesn't fit, though. The D&D rules, stats, everything is written to be an abstraction of blow-by-blow combat. Grappling breaks the flow... the entire maneuver is the kind of low-level combat action that has been abstracted out everywhere else.

Quietus
2007-08-17, 09:32 PM
Watching people argue that something isn't confusing to someone who is or has been confused is hilarious. It's like raising you're voice when you're talking to a deaf person.

I'm not arguing, I'm explaining. People seem to think that grappling requires way too many rolls; If you START your grapple in a given turn, it requires one more attack than just making a full attack. One to touch, then a grapple check in place of an attack roll from there on out. I'm just trying to point out how it follows a very simple pattern of :

Touch if needed/potential AoO
Grapple check
Result

Which is VERY similar to :

Attack roll
Damage

Could it be improved? Absolutely. Is it confusing as it is right now? Not really, it's just intimidating at first glance.

AtomicKitKat
2007-08-17, 11:19 PM
You think they're bad now? Back in AD&D, it was mostly Strength checks, and you really only had the option of "overbearing your opponent into a pin.".

As to what it accomplishes that the axe-wielding barbarian cannot, it sets them up. The barbarian may not necessarily be able to drop them in one.

As written though, Grappling is more for tentacled/serpentine monsters(almost all Aberrations, Mariliths, Couatls, Lillends, and anyone who gets Constrict or other options in Grapples.

Iku Rex
2007-08-18, 01:14 AM
I'm overjoyed to find so many grapple experts posting to this thread! Perhaps we can finally get some questions answered that have been plaguing WotC game designers and various "rules gurus" for years.

These are not obscure "once in a lifetime questions". They can and do come up regularly in a campaign.

Oh, and some of these questions have been answered in FAQs and "Rules of the Game" articles. Sometimes contradictorily. Please use only the core rulebooks - preferably the grapple rules in the PHB - to determine the answers.

I've included some (very) brief explanations for why it's a question worth asking.

1. Do bonuses and penalties on attack rolls (like the +2 moral bonus from heroism) apply to grapple checks? Can you use Combat Expertise or Power Attack in a grapple?

A grapple check is "like" an attack roll. Exactly how much "like" an attack roll is it?

2. If you have multiple natural attacks, the flurry of blows ability, you're using two weapon or you're hasted, can you use all your regular attacks in a grapple (at a -4 penalty)? Can you substitute a "damage your opponent" action for each attack?

"Some" of the grapple options substitutes for "an attack", but the rules also state that you can attempt one of the actions if you have multiple attacks from your base attack bonus.

(Note: The "attack your opponent" action states that you can’t attack with two weapons while grappling, but the "damage your opponent" option doesn't.)

3. What are the odds of hitting each participant in a grapple when attacking a grappling creature with a ranged weapon? What if it's a toad familiar (Diminutive) grappling the tarrasque (Colossal)?

For once, this question is easily answered by the RAW. Just read through the entire combat chapter until you come to table 8-6: Armor Class Modifiers. One of the footnotes tells you to roll randomly to see which grappling combatant you strike. (No matter their size.) How many of you missed that rule? How many have applied it to melee attacks as well? In my experience from various message boards, the answer is "many".

Tower
2007-08-18, 09:00 PM
As a jujitsu (Japanese) student, there are two sorts of grappling I've encountered

BJJ/MMA/Ground Style, where both roll around on the floor until someone loses
Much like present D&D rules actually

Jujitsu Style, where if one person tries something, one of three things happens
It works and the opponents gets hurt.
It doesn't work and nothing happens (Resists, opponents blocks, etc.)
It doesn't work, the opponent counters, and you get hurt.

This second style would be far easier to implement because it would be

PC rolls to initate grapple
Opponent rolls to resist
Rolls are too close to win so roll again in next turn
or Loser gets injured/at mercy of opponent

I would have it
win by 5+ You win. You can Pin, stop from talking etc.
Win by 1-4 You have advantage,
Opponent loses next turn, -2 mod for it
Draw Re-roll on opponents turn
Lose by 1-4 Opponent has advantage,
Reroll on its turn, -2 mod for you
Lose by 5 Opponents wins, it pins, etc.

I would make it so grapples can only be used by humanoids against humanoids one size bigger to 2 or 3 sizes smaller
Because even though I know how to grapple, I'm not going to grapple a Giant, Bat, Ooze, Bear or Dragon.
I would grapple Orcs, Gnomes, Trolls, Drow, etc.

horseboy
2007-08-18, 09:34 PM
d by humanoids against humanoids one size bigger to 2 or 3 sizes smaller
Because even though I know how to grapple, I'm not going to grapple a Giant, Bat, Ooze, Bear or Dragon.
I would grapple Orcs, Gnomes, Trolls, Drow, etc.

Interesting idea, however, you'd still have to have rules for grappling non humanoids so when the bear, constrictor, kracken, etc grabs you it would follow the same consequences.

Ungvar
2007-08-19, 02:59 AM
As a jujitsu (Japanese) student, there are two sorts of grappling I've encountered

BJJ/MMA/Ground Style, where both roll around on the floor until someone loses
Much like present D&D rules actually

Jujitsu Style, where if one person tries something, one of three things happens
It works and the opponents gets hurt.
It doesn't work and nothing happens (Resists, opponents blocks, etc.)
It doesn't work, the opponent counters, and you get hurt.

This second style would be far easier to implement because it would be

PC rolls to initate grapple
Opponent rolls to resist
Rolls are too close to win so roll again in next turn
or Loser gets injured/at mercy of opponent

I would have it
win by 5+ You win. You can Pin, stop from talking etc.
Win by 1-4 You have advantage,
Opponent loses next turn, -2 mod for it
Draw Re-roll on opponents turn
Lose by 1-4 Opponent has advantage,
Reroll on its turn, -2 mod for you
Lose by 5 Opponents wins, it pins, etc.

I would make it so grapples can only be used by humanoids against humanoids one size bigger to 2 or 3 sizes smaller
Because even though I know how to grapple, I'm not going to grapple a Giant, Bat, Ooze, Bear or Dragon.
I would grapple Orcs, Gnomes, Trolls, Drow, etc.

I like where you're going with this, though I might just say if you win by 5+, the opponent just plain loses his next turn altogether, he can't even try to escape. If you win by 10+, then he loses his next two turns, because you've got an awesome hold on him. But if you decide to prevent him from speaking, he can try to break the pin on that round, because you'd probably have to alter your hold to ensure the mouth is covered.

And if you only have humanoids grappling other humanoids, the shapeshifter PCs aren't going to like that very much.

lord_khaine
2007-08-19, 05:14 AM
1. Do bonuses and penalties on attack rolls (like the +2 moral bonus from heroism) apply to grapple checks? Can you use Combat Expertise or Power Attack in a grapple?

2. If you have multiple natural attacks, the flurry of blows ability, you're using two weapon or you're hasted, can you use all your regular attacks in a grapple (at a -4 penalty)? Can you substitute a "damage your opponent" action for each attack?

3. What are the odds of hitting each participant in a grapple when attacking a grappling creature with a ranged weapon? What if it's a toad familiar (Diminutive) grappling the tarrasque (Colossal)?


1. bonuses and penalties does not apply to the grapple roll, since it isnt a attack roll, its a opposed roll.
as for the power attack thing, im actualy not 100% sure, but i would say you cant use it in a grapple, at least not to do grapple damage, though you could use it when you attack with a natural or unarmed strike.

2.well the rules clearly say you cant use 2 weapons, but that you can use natural attacks.
besides that there are no rules that blocks for the use of haste or flurry bonus attacks, so i dont see whats to be uncertain about that either, and its also clearly statet that you can "damage your opponent" instead of an attack.

3. this one is also answered by the rules, though they could have placed it a more visibel place, and though it might be a bit silly, the ods are 50/50

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-08-19, 07:49 AM
2.well the rules clearly say you cant use 2 weapons, but that you can use natural attacks.


Using two natural weapons is also using two weapons, so the Sage is not contradicting the RAW when he says that you can only use one natural weapon to make an attack in a grapple.


How many attacks does a creature with multiple natural weapons get while it’s grappling? ...

Under normal circumstances, a creature can can attack with only one of its natural weapons while grappling (and it takes a –4 penalty on such attacks; PH 156). A grappling dire bear can attack with either a claw or its bite.
...

Kioran
2007-08-19, 08:11 AM
Iīd like for a more decisive outcome for most Grapples too - the current system, while being unescapable for most PCs or smller monsters and spelling inevitable defeat for Spellcasters without FoM, also works too slow - the rest of the combatants will have duked it out before the Grapplers are halfway through.
The grappling rules are not complicated as such, and thereīs little I would change about them. Only two things Iīd do would be to make the outcome of a grapple check more decisive, like pinning within the first round or grapple damage after succesfully initiating the grapple. Make these things go down faster.
Second thing: There should be a Feat-Chain or Fighter/Monk Class Feature selection (think d20 Modern Talents, which fit the fighter class quite well imo) which lets you pump u your Grapple mod and Damage.

But the rules as such are not that bad that they need to go and are the worst things about 3rd ed.
I just think the presentation in that teaser video is infuriating, is all.....

Iku Rex
2007-08-19, 09:48 AM
1. bonuses and penalties does not apply to the grapple roll, since it isnt a attack roll, its a opposed roll.What makes you think an attack roll can't be an opposed roll? Both disarm and sunder involve opposed attack rolls. And like I mentioned, even though a grapple check isn't an attack roll it's "like" an attack roll. What does that mean?

You didn't mention Combat Expertise, but I assume you agree it's a "free" +5 AC against your opponent, since the penalty on attacks rolls won't apply to your grapple checks.
2.well the rules clearly say you cant use 2 weapons, but that you can use natural attacks.It's not as simple as that. The rules say you can attack with "a natural weapon" (not "natural attacks").

Under the "attack your opponent" option they do state that you can't attack with two weapons. However, the "attack" in that rule would seem to refer to the "attack your opponent" option. Does that rule still apply if you're not using the "attack your opponent" option?

besides that there are no rules that blocks for the use of haste or flurry bonus attacks, so i dont see whats to be uncertain about that either, and its also clearly statet that you can "damage your opponent" instead of an attack."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."

Both the FAQ and the MM makes it clear that "normally, a monster can attack with only one of its natural weapons while grappling" (quote from Rake special ability). Presumably the intent is that you only get to use the "If You’re Grappling" options with multiple attacks from BAB.

Also, if you do allow this then 1st level monks can make two "damage your opponent" grapple checks at no penalty. Possibly three if they say they're two-weapon fighting. At no penalty of course, since a grapple check is not an attack roll. Likewise a monster can make a grapple check for each natural attack at full BAB, even if it would normally have a penalty on most of its attacks.

Haste gives a character an extra attack with "any weapon he is holding" when making a full attack action. Is a grapple check to damage your opponent "a weapon you are holding"?

Iku Rex
2007-08-19, 09:59 AM
Using two natural weapons is also using two weapons, so the Sage is not contradicting the RAW when he says that you can only use one natural weapon to make an attack in a grapple. I am sure the answer is based on the bit about multiple attacks from high BAB and not on the idea that using natural attacks is "attacking with two weapons". It doesn't even work in a strictly literal sense, since most monsters have more than two natural attacks.


Oh, and since you quoted the FAQ I'll give you Rules of the Game. Just to muddy the waters. :smallsmile:

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

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

Kioran
2007-08-19, 10:15 AM
I'm overjoyed to find so many grapple experts posting to this thread! Perhaps we can finally get some questions answered that have been plaguing WotC game designers and various "rules gurus" for years.

These are not obscure "once in a lifetime questions". They can and do come up regularly in a campaign.

Oh, and some of these questions have been answered in FAQs and "Rules of the Game" articles. Sometimes contradictorily. Please use only the core rulebooks - preferably the grapple rules in the PHB - to determine the answers.

I've included some (very) brief explanations for why it's a question worth asking.

1. Do bonuses and penalties on attack rolls (like the +2 moral bonus from heroism) apply to grapple checks? Can you use Combat Expertise or Power Attack in a grapple?

A grapple check is "like" an attack roll. Exactly how much "like" an attack roll is it?

2. If you have multiple natural attacks, the flurry of blows ability, you're using two weapon or you're hasted, can you use all your regular attacks in a grapple (at a -4 penalty)? Can you substitute a "damage your opponent" action for each attack?

"Some" of the grapple options substitutes for "an attack", but the rules also state that you can attempt one of the actions if you have multiple attacks from your base attack bonus.

(Note: The "attack your opponent" action states that you can’t attack with two weapons while grappling, but the "damage your opponent" option doesn't.)

3. What are the odds of hitting each participant in a grapple when attacking a grappling creature with a ranged weapon? What if it's a toad familiar (Diminutive) grappling the tarrasque (Colossal)?

For once, this question is easily answered by the RAW. Just read through the entire combat chapter until you come to table 8-6: Armor Class Modifiers. One of the footnotes tells you to roll randomly to see which grappling combatant you strike. (No matter their size.) How many of you missed that rule? How many have applied it to melee attacks as well? In my experience from various message boards, the answer is "many".

1. Due to the similiarities, I always consider the Grapple check the equivalent of your unarmed strike. Nonproficient without Feat? You get an AoO. BAB + Strength? Just like a weapon attack. You do damage in the exact same way. I think itīs a fair abstraction and also bars you from dumping you AB for advantages like you presented.

2. You can make a Full attack in a grapple. You can flurry in a grapple. This "Attack your opponent" thing is more like a Thai Clinch then like grappling: Clinching while both contestants merrily knee, elbow and punch each other. The only restriction is attacking at -4 and using light weapons or naturalweapons/unarmed strikes.
"Damaging your opponent" is mainly an option for pinning your opponent (you canīt attack him anymore, but you can pin him and then "damage" him) or if you, in any case, think you have a better chance hitting your opponent this way than through iterative attacks. Works if you donīt have iterative attacks and/or the improved grapple Feat and think you have a better chance that way, especially against high-Dex types.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-08-19, 10:15 AM
I am sure the answer is based on the bit about multiple attacks from high BAB and not on the idea that using natural attacks is "attacking with two weapons".

I was using the same paragraph the FAQ referred to, but the rule is re-iterated under the Rake special ability.


Rake (Ex): A creature with this special attack gains extra natural attacks when it grapples its foe. Normally, a monster can attack with only one of its natural weapons while grappling,
(My emphasis)

Nothing prevents you from full attacking in a grapple, so the only thing that prevents a monster from using all its natural attacks is the sentence about using more than one weapon. (The rule certainly was not made while writing Rake.)


It doesn't even work in a strictly literal sense, since most monsters have more than two natural attacks.

That is just plain silly. If you cannot attack with two weapons it follows naturally that you cannot attack with three weapons or four or five or six.

They could have written it more clearly, but there is sufficient information as it is.


Oh, and since you quoted the FAQ I'll give you Rules of the Game. Just to muddy the waters. :smallsmile:


This just proves that the grapple rules are poorly understood, even by game designers. *shrug*

The RAW and the FAQ agrees.

Iku Rex
2007-08-19, 10:47 AM
I was using the same paragraph the FAQ referred to, but the rule is re-iterated under the Rake special ability. The FAQ mentions the -4 penalty but does not refer to a specific paragraph.

[ QUOTE ](My emphasis)Yes, I am familiar with that rule. I quoted it myself about an hour ago in this thread. It does not support your suggestion that "attacking with two weapons" refers to natural attacks.

Nothing prevents you from full attacking in a grapple, so the only thing that prevents a monster from using all its natural attacks is the sentence about using more than one weapon. (The rule certainly was not made while writing Rake.)Something does prevent you from full attacking with natural weapons in a grapple.

"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.

"Attack your opponent" is "one of these actions". So the reasoning would be that you can only use it "if your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks". Each such attack would have to be with "only one of [your] natural weapons", even if you get more than one attack.


That is just plain silly. If you cannot attack with two weapons it follows naturally that you cannot attack with three weapons or four or five or six.It no more silly than claiming that "attacking with two weapons", a phrase taken almost literally from the two-weapon fighting rules, refers to natural attacks. If you want to be literal you can't have it both ways.

They could have written it more clearly, but there is sufficient information as it is.Clearly there isn't.

This just proves that the grapple rules are poorly understood, even by game designers. *shrug*Uh, yes. That, if I may remind you, is the topic of discussion for the thread and what my post was meant to prove. At least someone agrees with me.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-08-19, 10:50 AM
What makes you think an attack roll can't be an opposed roll? Both disarm and sunder involve opposed attack rolls. And like I mentioned, even though a grapple check isn't an attack roll it's "like" an attack roll. What does that mean?

Attack rolls can be opposed, but then they are called attack rolls and not something that is like an attack roll.
Like, in this case, just draws an obvious parallel to a well-known mechanic.
This is further clarified by the FAQ.


You didn't mention Combat Expertise, but I assume you agree it's a "free" +5 AC against your opponent, since the penalty on attacks rolls won't apply to your grapple checks.

Combat expertise has to be used with the attack action or the full attack action.
If you are making attacks you are not making grapple checks so there is no possibility of abuse there.

Iku Rex
2007-08-19, 11:01 AM
Attack rolls can be opposed, but then they are called attack rolls and not something that is like an attack roll.
Like, in this case, just draws an obvious parallel to a well-known mechanic.
This is further clarified by the FAQ.I know what the FAQ says. From my first post to the thread: Please use only the core rulebooks - preferably the grapple rules in the PHB - to determine the answers.


Again, the question is if the grapple rules in the PHB are simple and easy to understand.

Combat expertise has to be used with the attack action or the full attack action.
If you are making attacks you are not making grapple checks so there is no possibility of abuse there.In order to get multiple attacks from high BAB you need to use the full attack action. The full attack action is also specifically mentioned in the flurry of blows rules. If you're not getting multiple attacks from high BAB you can't make multiple "damage your opponent" grapple checks.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-08-19, 11:13 AM
The FAQ mentions the -4 penalty but does not refer to a specific paragraph.

It refers to page 156 of the PHB where both things are mentioned. It does not refer to the Rake special ability, so hopefully the Sage is not basing his answer on that.


Yes, I am familiar with that rule. I quoted it myself about an hour ago in this thread. It does not support your suggestion that "attacking with two weapons" refers to natural attacks.

It re-iterates the normal rules for creatures with multiple natural attacks.
A natural weapon is also a weapon so it is not unlikely that when they refer to two weapons they mean all instances when you have more than one weapon.


Something does prevent you from full attacking with natural weapons in a grapple.

"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.

"Attack your opponent" is "one of these actions". So the reasoning would be that you can only use it "if your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks". Each such attack would have to be with "only one of [your] natural weapons", even if you get more than one attack.


First of all we should remember that this is written for players that generally do not have natural weapons in the PHB.

And this certainly does not explain why a monster could not use several natural weapons if it had a high enough BAB.

But even so, this supports that the full-attack action is possible.


It no more silly than claiming that "attacking with two weapons", a phrase taken almost literally from the two-weapon fighting rules, refers to natural attacks. If you want to be literal you can't have it both ways.

Are you claiming that a natural weapon is not a weapon?


Clearly there isn't.

Uh, yes. That, if I may remind you, is the topic of discussion for the thread and what my post was meant to prove. At least someone agrees with me.

I never said that I did not agree with you and it is obvious that some people have had issues with grapple in their games.

However, this does not mean that the rules are not there already, just that they can be hard to find in the middle of combat.

(There are other issues with grapple, but I do think that these are reasonably clear)

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-08-19, 11:48 AM
I know what the FAQ says. From my first post to the thread: Please use only the core rulebooks - preferably the grapple rules in the PHB - to determine the answers.


The FAQ is not making up rules (in this case), it simply refers to them.


Again, the question is if the grapple rules in the PHB are simple and easy to understand.


I think you think I disagree more with you than I do.
The rules certainly could have been written better and more clearly. Grapple is not a smooth mechanic.

The interpretations provided here, that you seem to disagree with, are within the RAW. The FAQ is only used to support the fact that the interpretation is valid.




Combat expertise has to be used with the attack action or the full attack action.
If you are making attacks you are not making grapple checks so there is no possibility of abuse there.

In order to get multiple attacks from high BAB you need to use the full attack action. The full attack action is also specifically mentioned in the flurry of blows rules. If you're not getting multiple attacks from high BAB you can't make multiple "damage your opponent" grapple checks.


I am sorry, but I have no idea what you are referring to here.

I have never claimed that you can make multiple "damage your opponent" grapple checks if you do not gain iterative attacks from a high BAB.

If you are making grapple checks you are not using the full attack action or the standard attack action and cannot benefit from Combat Expertise.

Iku Rex
2007-08-19, 12:22 PM
It refers to page 156 of the PHB where both things are mentioned. It does not refer to the Rake special ability, so hopefully the Sage is not basing his answer on that.That's also the page where you find the "multiple attacks from high BAB" rule. And the page reference could just be for "it takes a –4 penalty on such attacks".


It re-iterates the normal rules for creatures with multiple natural attacks.Huh? What "normal rule" are you talking about? :smallconfused:


A natural weapon is also a weapon so it is not unlikely that when they refer to two weapons they mean all instances when you have more than one weapon.I disagree. The rules call two-weapon fighting "fighting with two weapons" (PHB 160). If you think natural attacks are sometimes referred to as "attacking with two weapons [or more]" then you should quote some rule using "attacking with two weapons" to refer to natural attacks.

And this certainly does not explain why a monster could not use several natural weapons if it had a high enough BAB.You're right that the rules don't say, but I assume it's just a matter of not being able to change weapons in mid-attack. Since the creature would be using its natural weapon basically as a manufactured weapon you'd even have a better case for your "attacking with two weapons" interpretation. Anyway, it's not likely to ever come up in a game. There are very few situations where there'd be any point to switching natural weapons in the middle of the full attack.


But even so, this supports that the full-attack action is possible.Sure. You can use a full attack action to make multiple attacks from BAB (substituting grapple actions for the attacks). You can not make a full natural attack routine, since that's not an option in the grapple rules.

Are you claiming that a natural weapon is not a weapon?I am claiming that a natural weapon is not a weapon in the same way that you are claiming that 2=3, 2=4 and 2=5. That is, by applying some interpretation to the literal letter of the rules.

Iku Rex
2007-08-19, 12:33 PM
I am sorry, but I have no idea what you are referring to here.

I have never claimed that you can make multiple "damage your opponent" grapple checks if you do not gain iterative attacks from a high BAB.

If you are making grapple checks you are not using the full attack action or the standard attack action and cannot benefit from Combat Expertise.From the combat chapter: "Full Attack: If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. "

The only way to get iterative attacks from high BAB is to use the full attack action (see above). If, as you say, grapplers can't use the full attack action when making grapple checks, then they don't get any additional attacks.

In your opinion, what kind of action do you use to make multiple grapple checks to damage your opponent?

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-08-19, 12:40 PM
That's also the page where you find the "multiple attacks from high BAB" rule. And the page reference could just be for "it takes a –4 penalty on such attacks".

Yes, and I did acknowledge that.
But what are you suggesting then? That the Sage are making rules up as he go along?


Huh? What "normal rule" are you talking about? :smallconfused:

The one we are talking about on page 156. :smallamused:
Unless you claim that they provided the relevant the rules for attacking with natural weapons in a grapple in the description of Rake.


I disagree. The rules call two-weapon fighting "fighting with two weapons" (PHB 160). If you think natural attacks are sometimes referred to as "attacking with two weapons [or more]" then you should quote some rule using "attacking with two weapons" to refer to natural attacks.


I am not surprised that the rules for TWF refer to "fighting with two weapons", but that certainly does not mean that a paragraph talking about both manufactured weapon attacks and natural weapon attacks could take "two weapons" to literally mean two weapons of either kind.
If they only meant TWF they could have written just that. (except that someone would claim that you could then use multiweapon fighting instead.)


You're right that the rules don't say, but I assume it's just a matter of not being able to change weapons in mid-attack. Since the creature would be using its natural weapon basically as a manufactured weapon you'd even have a better case for your "attacking with two weapons" interpretation. Anyway, it's not likely to ever come up in a game. There are very few situations where there'd be any point to switching natural weapons in the middle of the full attack.

Your assumption would be wrong then, because you are not prevented from switching weapons during an attack.


Sure. You can use a full attack action to make multiple attacks from BAB (substituting grapple actions for the attacks). You can not make a full natural attack routine, since that's not an option in the grapple rules.

Attacking is not a special grapple action, it is just that, an attack.


I am claiming that a natural weapon is not a weapon in the same way that you are claiming that 2=3, 2=4 and 2=5. That is, by applying some interpretation to the literal letter of the rules.


You have no RAW basis for your claim. Show me where it says that a natural weapon is not a weapon?

And I am obviously not claiming that 2=x for all x = 2,3,4,...

If you are attacking with more than two weapons you are also at least attacking with two.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-08-19, 12:51 PM
From the combat chapter: "Full Attack: If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. "

The only way to get iterative attacks from high BAB is to use the full attack action (see above). If, as you say, grapplers can't use the full attack action when making grapple checks, then they don't get any additional attacks.

In your opinion, what kind of action do you use to make multiple grapple checks to damage your opponent?

A full round action.

Grapple checks are not attacks, but are made in place of.

Even if this is a bit murky and ill-defined RAW I cannot imagine that anyone really is in doubt about the RAI?

heroe_de_leyenda
2007-08-19, 01:21 PM
There ARE to many checks... i kinda would simplify grappel to make it more like a skill check...

Sure, grappling involves many actions, but so does a... first aid, heal check for example: It involves maybe, search for a woud, tear a piece of cloth, tie the wound and press hard. There are 4 actions, so what? are you going to make a search check first to find the wound? then a strenght check to tear some cloth from your cloack? then a use rope to tie the wound? and finally another strengh check to make pressure? NO!! you simplify all the actions that involve first aid into ONE check: the DC 15 heal check.

I'm not saying that grapple has to be a skill, it just needs to bbe simpler. Come to think about it... it could be a skill.... a str based skill, that way, not everybody who isn't strong and big would be helpless in grapple. you just buysome ranks (or whatever 4e brings for skills)

Matthew
2007-08-19, 06:53 PM
You think they're bad now? Back in AD&D, it was mostly Strength checks, and you really only had the option of "overbearing your opponent into a pin."

Heh, depends which version you have in mind. The Grapple Rules in Combat and Tactics are almost identical to the 3e version.

AtomicKitKat
2007-08-19, 09:49 PM
Heh, depends which version you have in mind. The Grapple Rules in Combat and Tactics are almost identical to the 3e version.

Sadly, I only owned PHB/DMG/MM, Tome of Artifacts, Tome of Magic(I think), and Player's Options: Spells and Powers. So I'm basing it off the PHB/DMG rules on grappling.

Matthew
2007-08-21, 11:57 AM
Hmmn. Is that the 1e Core System you're describing, then? It doesn't appear to be the 2e Core System (which used Attack Rolls and a Chart).

AtomicKitKat
2007-08-21, 12:28 PM
I dunno. I'm kind of fuzzy on it. It was the black books with the red AD&D logo.

Dausuul
2007-08-21, 12:31 PM
You want to know why so many people think the grapple rules are too complicated?

This thread is why.

Matthew
2007-08-21, 12:33 PM
I dunno. I'm kind of fuzzy on it. It was the black books with the red AD&D logo.

Probably misremembering, then, as the Black Core Books were just reprints of the 1989 2e ones text wise, with a very small degree of tidy up. I wouldn't be surprised if a DM started calling for Strength Checks during a Grapple, though.

Devils_Advocate
2007-08-21, 01:08 PM
Just from this thread, I'm guessing that the Grapple rules will be for 3rd Edition what THAC0 has been for 2nd, only moreso. That is to say, I expect that most players will agree that that the 4th Edition rules are a significant improvement, but there will be a small minority that, while not advocating a return to the previous rules, will say, "It wasn't confusing at all! It wasn't that complicated! You're exaggerating. Bah. [I]Bah. BAH! *Fist shaking*"

Harold
2007-08-21, 01:14 PM
I don't mind it when enemys try to grapple you I just or the rules I just don't like it when large cretures have improved grapple. Thats my only problem with it.

Matthew
2007-08-21, 01:15 PM
Just from this thread, I'm guessing that the Grapple rules will be for 3rd Edition what THAC0 has been for 2nd, only moreso. That is to say, I expect that most players will agree that that the 4th Edition rules are a significant improvement, but there will be a small minority that, while not advocating a return to the previous rules, will say, "It wasn't confusing at all! It wasn't that complicated! You're exaggerating. Bah. [I]Bah. BAH! *Fist shaking*"
You make THAC0 ANGRY!

Iku Rex
2007-08-23, 04:08 AM
(Sorry about the long delay.)

Yes, and I did acknowledge that.
But what are you suggesting then? That the Sage are making rules up as he go along?You are shocked at the idea that the FAQ might introduce rules not explicitly found in the core rulebooks? :smallamused:

The reason you can't just substitute an attack in a grapple for a regular attack is, like I've said a few times now, based on the rule (paraphrased) that you can only attempt a "grapple action" in place of an attack gained from BAB.

The only made up rule is that you can't switch natural weapon in the middle of the attack sequence. (And that's probably based on "rake".)


I am not surprised that the rules for TWF refer to "fighting with two weapons", but that certainly does not mean that a paragraph talking about both manufactured weapon attacks and natural weapon attacks could take "two weapons" to literally mean two weapons of either kind.
If they only meant TWF they could have written just that. (except that someone would claim that you could then use multiweapon fighting instead.)If they meant natural attacks they could have written just that, or better yet "more than a single attack".

Example, MM292: Damage: Damage changes with Strength. If the creature uses a two-handed weapon or has a single natural weapon, it adds 1-1/2 times its Strength bonus to the damage. If it has more than a single attack, such as a character with two weapons or a monster with claws and a bite, then it adds its Strength bonus to damage rolls for the primary attack and 1/2 its Strength bonus to all secondary attacks.

Note the "or". Clearly whoever wrote that doesn't think "two weapons" include natural attacks.

I notice you were unable to find a single example from the rules where rules for "attacking with two weapons" were supposed to apply to natural weapon attacks.


Your assumption would be wrong then, because you are not prevented from switching weapons during an attack.Uh, yes, you are. RTFFAQ. You yourself quoted the FAQ rule stating that you can only attack with one natural weapon in a grapple.

Normally you can't make iterative BAB attacks with natural weapons, and this must be another exception from the regular rules.


Attacking is not a special grapple action, it is just that, an attack.Attacking is a special grapple action if you're using the "Attack Your Opponent" special grapple action to attack.

You have no RAW basis for your claim. Show me where it says that a natural weapon is not a weapon?Show me where "attack with two weapons" refers to natural attacks. [And no, your "unique" example from the "attack your opponent" grapple action doesn't count.] Show me where the rules for attacking with two weapons (PHB 160) apply to natural weapons.

And I am obviously not claiming that 2=x for all x = 2,3,4,...

If you are attacking with more than two weapons you are also at least attacking with two.The rule is that you can't attack with two weapons. Not "two weapons or more". If this rule applies to attacking with three weapons then you're claiming that two=three (in that rule).

***


A full round action.A full attack action is "a full round action".

You're seriously inventing a new kind of full round action for grapples? There's a list of full round actions in the PHB you know (page 141). Lighting a torch is a full round action. Unlocking a weapon in a locked gauntlet is a full round action. "Making multiple grapple checks" is not in the table. Or at least, not under "full round action".

"Grapple" can be found under "Action Type Varies". It has a footnote. "These attack forms substitute for a melee attack, not an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or even as an attack of opportunity."


Grapple checks are not attacks, but are made in place of.Yes, and if you can't make the attacks the grapple checks are made in place of, you can't make the grapple checks. In order to make the attacks you must use a full attack action.

Devils_Advocate
2007-08-23, 04:50 PM
The rule is that you can't attack with two weapons. Not "two weapons or more". If this rule applies to attacking with three weapons then you're claiming that two=three (in that rule).
No he isn't. He's claiming that you can't attack with three weapons without attacking with two weapons, which seems perfectly obvious to me. It's just like I can't have three apples without having two apples.

To illustrate this, let's label my three apples Apple A, Apple B, and Apple C respectively. Now, Apple A and Apple B are two apples, right? And I have them, right? So they are two apples that I have; so there are two apples that I have; so I have two apples. Clear?

The claim is not that two equals three, it's that two is a part of three. A group of three objects contains a group of two objects. A group of three attacks contains a group of two attacks. If you've got a group of things, you've got any group that that group contains.

Kioran
2007-08-23, 05:03 PM
I donīt get it. Yes, there are more than a few places where the rules are a little bit ambiguous. But why, good lord, why, do people always need to pick up the most complicated interpretation? Why do people need to get hung up on minute details? Sometimes itīs time for Occamīs razor. Unless explicitly stated, the most uncomplicated interpretation is probably right.
You can attack in a grapple, normally, with all your iterative attacks + flurry + natural weapons, as long as these can be considered light weapons, at -4 penalty. You cannot do this while pinned or pinning.
You can also, as a standard action, use an opposed grapple check to deal damage. You can even do it in a pin.
Your grapple check is, more or less, an unarmed attack roll.

Now what, seriously, is wrong with that kind of interpretation? Where do the RAW contradict it? Which questions are left to adress? Seriously, sometimes I think 3.5 is as complicated as you make it for yourself.......

Sintanan
2007-09-04, 01:19 AM
New member of the forums, but one would think that does not make my thoughts any less important, right? Also considering it was this thread that made me want to register in the first place... Anywho.


The Grapple (Pg 155 PHB)
Grappling means wrestling and struggling hand-to-hand. To start grappling, you attempt the grapple in place of a normal attack.
The grapple is under special attacks, and is not a normal attack with an unarmed strike or natural weapon. This means that feats that enhance normal attacks do not apply here unless noted.


Grappling Consequences (Pg 156 PHB)
While you're grappling, your ability to attack others and defend yourself is limited.
No Threatened Squares: You do not threaten any squares while grappling.
No Dexterity Bonus: You lose your Dexterity bonus to AC against opponents you aren't grappling (It still applies against your target).
No Movement: You cannot move normally while grappling. However, there is a special option you can take during a grapple to move.
Steps of a Grapple: (Pg 156 PHB)
1) Attack of Opportunity. You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target you are trying to grapple. If you are damaged during this, the grapple fails.
Since you must be damaged to fail step 1, you can be hit by the target, but the damage reduced to 0 via damage reduction.
2) The Grab. You make a melee touch attack to grab the target. If you fail to hit, the grapple fails. If you succeed, the grapple moves to step three.
3) The Hold. Make an opposed grapple check* as a free action. If you succeed, you and your target are now grappling, and you deal damage to the target as if with an unarmed strike. If you lose, you fail to start the grapple. You automatically lose an attempt to hold if the target is two or more size categories larger than you are.
4) Maintain the Grapple. To maintain the grapple for later rounds, you must move into the target's space. This movement [counts as a standard movement], and provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents, but not from your target (See Grappling Consequences). If you cannot move into your target's space, you cannot maintain the grapple and must let go of the target. To grapple again, you must begin at Step 1.

Notes:
Grapple Check: Base Attack Bonus + Strength Modifier + Special Size Modifier.
Special Size Modifier: Colossal +16, Gargantuan +12, Huge +8, Large +4, Medium +0, Small -4, Tiny -8, Diminutive -12, Fine -16. This modifier overrides the normal size modifier.
During the Grapple (Pg 156 PHB, If You're Grappling)
When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions. Some of these actions take place of an attack, if your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of an attack.
This means if your BAB is 6/1, you can perform two of the options that replace a normal attack (such as "Damage Your Opponent", "Escape from Grapple", etc).

Activate a Magic Item: Apparent.

Attack your Opponent: You make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon. You take a -4 penalty on such an attack. You can use Flurry of Blows taking this option. You get a single extra attack, even if you opt for this option multiple times.
This means if you have a BAB of 11/6/1 and opt for this option. You then opt to activate Flurry of Blows. This makes your BAB 9/9/4/-1. You make two attacks at +9 and +9. You then get to make your second choice. If you opt to "Attack your Opponent" again. Your next attack is +4.
Natural weapons cannot be two-weapons. That is why you find creatures like Bears with Claw x2 and a Bite. Instead of attacking with a single claw twice, the Bear attacks with one claw, then the other. A bear with a BAB of 11 could opt for three "Attack your Opponent" options, attacking with their two claws and their bite.

Cast a Spell: Apparent.

Damage your Opponent: You make an opposed grapple check in place of an attack. If you win, you deal damage as a normal unarmed strike.

Draw a Light Weapon: Apparent.

Escape from Grapple: Apparent.

Move: You can move half your speed (bringing those in grapple with you) by winning an opposed grapple check. This is a standard action, and you must beat all other individual check results to move the grapple. You get a +4 to your check if your opponent is pinned and no one else is involved.
Since "Draw a Light Weapon" is a move action, and a "Move" is a standard action, you could move the grapple, draw a weapon, and make a single "in place of an attack" option.

Retrieve a Spell Component: Apparent.

Pin your Opponent: You can hold your opponent immobile for 1 round by winning an opposed grapple check (made in place of an attack). If an opponent is pinned, you have different options available to you.

Break Another's Pin: If you are grappling an opponent who has another character pinned (gotta love these multi-man grapples '-.-). If you win, you break the hold that the target has over someone else. They are still grappling, but no longer pinned.

Use Opponent's Weapon (I like to call this Imitating Kratos): If your target is holding a light weapon, you can use it against them. Make an opposed grapple check (in place of an attack). If you win, make an attack roll with the weapon at a -4 penalty (Doing this does not cost an extra option). You do not gain possession of the weapon by doing this.
During a Pin (Pg 156-157 PHB, If You're Pinning an Opponent)
Once you've pinned your opponent, he's at your mercy. However, you cannot do everything you could during a grapple. You can attempt "Damage your Opponent", "Use Opponent's Weapon", or "Move". You do gain access to new options.
During a pinning, you cannot do the following: "Draw a Light Weapon", use a light weapon, escape another's grapple (during multi-man grapples), "Retrieve a Spell Component", pin another character, or "Break Another's Pin".

Prevent Speech: You keep your pinned opponent from speaking. This is a free action.

Take Secured Object: You can attempt a disarm against your opponent (they get a +4 bonus to resist) to grab away a well-secured object worn.

Release: You may voluntarily release your pinned foe, ending the grapple.
If You're Pinned (pg 157 PHB)
When pinned you are immobile, but not helpless, for 1 round. While pinned, you take a -4 penalty to your AC against opponents other than the one pinning you. On your turn, you can try to escape the pin by making an opposed grapple check in place of an attack. You can make an Escape Artist check in place of your grapple check if you want, but this uses a standard action instead of an attack. If you win you are not pinned, but you are still grappling.
Joining a Grapple (pg 157 PHB)
If your target is already grappling someone else, you can use an attack to join in as a normal grapple, except you get to skip steps 1 and 2. You still need to complete steps 3 and 4.
If multiple people are already involved in the grapple, you pick one as your target for joining in.
Multiple Grapplers (pg 157 PHB)
Several combatants can be in a single grapple. Up to four combatants can grapple a single opponent in a given round. Creatures one or more size categories smaller than the "victim" count as half a combatant. Creatures one categories larger than the "victim" count as two combatants. Creatures two or more size categories larger count as four combatants.
When there are multiple opponents involved, you pick one target when there is an opposed check. If you try to escape the grapple, your grapple check must beat all opponents in the pile.
Put plainly, this means grappling breaks down to:
Level 8 Monk vs. Level 8 Orc Barbarian
-----------------------------------
PC: "I attempt to grapple with the Orc."
DM: "You provoked an attack of opportunity..."
*roll*
DM: "...but the Orc missed. Make your melee touch attack."
*roll*
DM: "You grabbed a hold of the Orc, see if you start the grapple."
*roll roll*
DM: "You succeeded. Deal your unarmed strike damage."
*roll*
PC: "Booyah! My monk hit him for 10!"
DM: "As you two went into the grapple, you managed to dislocate his left arm. You move into the Orc's space and maintain the grapple. You have one attack action left, so you can do one of the offensive grappling options."
PC: "Sweet. I'll attack him with my kama and use Flurry of Blows."
*roll roll*
DM: "You hit him both times. Nice rolling."
*roll roll*
DM: "Well, the kama does a good chunk of damage, but all that does is make the Orc more pissed off. It's -his- turn now."

So, that skirmish involved a total of 9 rolls. Not too shabby, considering a full attack with Flurry of Blows would involve 6 rolls if all the attacks hit.

Disclaimer: While I did copy the information from the PHB a bit and tweak it to be read easier, that is pretty accurate to what the book says. Also, if a lot of the information sounds like rambling, that could be thanks to a couple drinks and a late night.

Techonce
2007-09-04, 12:28 PM
New member of the forums, but one would think that does not make my thoughts any less important, right? Also considering it was this thread that made me want to register in the first place... Anywho.




Thanks.


That's the crux of it. The only thing we have messed up is moving into the others square in the second round. We have that as part of the initial grapple.

Aquillion
2007-09-04, 12:28 PM
Put plainly, this means grappling breaks down to:

Level 8 Monk vs. Level 8 Orc Barbarian
-----------------------------------
PC: "I attempt to grapple with the Orc."
DM: "You provoked an attack of opportunity..."
*roll*
DM: "...but the Orc missed. Make your melee touch attack."
*roll*
DM: "You grabbed a hold of the Orc, see if you start the grapple."
*roll roll*
DM: "You succeeded. Deal your unarmed strike damage."
*roll*
PC: "Booyah! My monk hit him for 10!"
DM: "As you two went into the grapple, you managed to dislocate his left arm. You move into the Orc's space and maintain the grapple. You have one attack action left, so you can do one of the offensive grappling options."
PC: "Sweet. I'll attack him with my kama and use Flurry of Blows."
*roll roll*
DM: "You hit him both times. Nice rolling."
*roll roll*
DM: "Well, the kama does a good chunk of damage, but all that does is make the Orc more pissed off. It's -his- turn now."

So, that skirmish involved a total of 9 rolls. Not too shabby, considering a full attack with Flurry of Blows would involve 6 rolls if all the attacks hit.
Yeah, but normal attacks are divided into two really, really fast and simple groups--roll for attack, then roll for damage. It's not six rolls verses nine; it's two steps verses six. That's a much bigger difference... if something takes six seperate steps to do, it had better not be something you're planning on doing every single combat.

Most of the 9 rolls in that grapple involved calculation with different modifiers, using slightly different rules, each against different targets or opposed rolls. That's much more annoying than just rolling a bunch of damage dice and summing up the results. Of course, if the rest of the group doesn't usually use grappling, and one person insists on dragging it in, it becomes even worse; it takes longer to do things the group is unfamiliar with.

Note that opposed rolls are one of the big problems here; that's why the game is smart enough to avoid them in almost every other common action. They're a bad game mechanic, taking extra time and extra calculations to add nothing but a bit more randomness, and are a big part of what's wrong with grappling rules as they stand. The 'opposed grapple check' is a massive kludge.

Why not just say the defender always rolls a 10 on their grapple check? What does it add to do two rolls there instead of one?

mostlyharmful
2007-09-04, 12:50 PM
Also this was only the first round, with a monk (high touch AC) vs a barb (high hp and damage red) this could stretch on and on, with a half dozen plus rolls every round depending on who grapples, who escapes, who pins and on and on. :smallsigh:

Techonce
2007-09-04, 01:18 PM
THe only other thing I want to add is that the tme it takes my player who playes a grapples to complete his turn is far shorter than the rest of my group who never can figure out what they want to do.

THe difference. Both the grappler and I knwo the rulesare are ready for it.

Rex Blunder
2007-09-04, 01:27 PM
THe only other thing I want to add is that the tme it takes my player who playes a grapples to complete his turn is far shorter than the rest of my group who never can figure out what they want to do.

THe difference. Both the grappler and I knwo the rulesare are ready for it.

A skilled, 10th level fighter can kill an ogre faster than a beginner, 1st-level fighter can kill an orc. That doesn't mean the orc is tougher than the ogre, though. :smalltongue:

BCOVertigo
2007-09-04, 05:02 PM
As a jujitsu (Japanese) student, there are two sorts of grappling I've encountered

BJJ/MMA/Ground Style, where both roll around on the floor until someone loses
Much like present D&D rules actually

Jujitsu Style, where if one person tries something, one of three things happens
It works and the opponents gets hurt.
It doesn't work and nothing happens (Resists, opponents blocks, etc.)
It doesn't work, the opponent counters, and you get hurt.

I'm going to cut the rant I decided not to write down to this.

BJJ is a very technical style and you don't give it enough credit, possibly due to a lack of direct experience with it.

On a side note, would it not be simpler to leave the counter to the opponents turn? Or would this be a kind of critical miss?

horseboy
2007-09-04, 05:57 PM
The scary thing is, as bad as they are in 3.x they're still miles better than the ones in The Complete Fighter back in 2nd. Anybody else not miss that craptastic chart?

Sintanan
2007-09-04, 07:35 PM
Might I suggest the following house rule:

Every instance of an opposed grapple check can be replaced by "You must roll a grapple check at DC(10 + Target's Grapple Modifier). Ties result in the character with the highest Grapple Modifier winning.

If there are multiple opponents in the grapple, roll against only the highest DC."
Grapple Modifier is equal to Strength Modifier + Base Attack Bonus + Special Size Modifier.

(This results in simply a grapple check with a "take 10" on the roll.)


This makes grapples go faster, and drastically reduces rolls during a multi-man grapple (which become dreadfully long).

...heh, it appears Aquilion is in the same frame of mind as me/my group.



If anyone has a house rule to expadite grapple combat anymore, I would love to hear it; What with every other question answered already. (By the way, since creatures beyond two size categories automatically fail/win grapple... A frog cannot grapple a wyrm.)

EDIT: Yeah, the 2E charts for grapple were awful.