Results 1 to 22 of 22
-
2010-07-20, 01:18 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Seattle, WA
- Gender
[3.5] I borked the rules again...(cause grappling wasn't complicated enough)
So, I was going through the grapple rules again for my Tashalatoran grappler, and came across an interesting conundrum in the rules for pinning a foe.
Originally Posted by SRD
Originally Posted by SRD
Originally Posted by SRD
Unless I'm a Factotum, a Choaker, or happen to be wearing a Belt of Battle, that Note text under Move is pretty much wasted ink? Or is someone seeing something here that I'm not? I mean, I know that 3.5 is full of holes, but this one is so big you could drive a bus through it. Sideways.
-
2010-07-20, 01:28 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Some corn field
- Gender
Re: [3.5] I borked the rules again...(cause grappling wasn't complicated enough)
i never payed attention to that rule. i actually would give someone a penalty to escape the grapple when pinned
Spoiler
In the past, I played Sir Theo Roost.
I am soon to begin playing his heir, Dora the Destroya
Avatar by Szilard
-
2010-07-20, 01:33 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Seattle, WA
- Gender
Re: [3.5] I borked the rules again...(cause grappling wasn't complicated enough)
There is a penalty...its called having to make 2 successive successful grapple checks. One to break the pin, and one to break the grapple. Thats most of the appeal of pinning someone. I think the fact that a pin "wears off" after one round is kinda bogus, in light of the other rules concerning grappling. If a person wants to get un-pinned, then they should have to fight their way out of it with rolls, not defaulting to "ding, pin's over".
-
2010-07-20, 02:20 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Beyond Poisonthorn Acre
Re: [3.5] I borked the rules again...(cause grappling wasn't complicated enough)
The grappling rules are a terrifying mess of nonsense and weird questions. (Improved Grab/Constrict/Rake, how does it work!?)
I think I've always played pins as being indefinite in duration; after establishing a pin, you get more options for what to do with your grapple check, and your opponent has to make two checks to get free (and you get the chance to re-establish the pin in between).
-
2010-07-20, 04:12 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Sunnydale
Re: [3.5] I borked the rules again...(cause grappling wasn't complicated enough)
You're overlooking a couple of possibilities. One is that there may be more than 2 parties involved in the grapple. You don't have to do both the pinning and moving in the same round. Someone else can pin the opponent, and you can move the whole grappling mass. Or you can pin your opponent, and an ally can move you all.
If you don't have help you can either pin your opponent (no movement) or move with your opponent (no pinning). But sometimes the opponent is the one helping you! You see, you're also confusing an attack (required to pin someone) with a standard action. There are various ways of getting an attack that don't involve a standard action. Your opponent may decide to try to cast a spell or take some other provoking action while in the grapple, for instance; then you can pin them with your AoO. That's the most likely scenario for this:Note: You get a +4 bonus on your grapple check to move a pinned opponent, but only if no one else is involved in the grapple.
-
2010-07-20, 04:35 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Beyond Poisonthorn Acre
Re: [3.5] I borked the rules again...(cause grappling wasn't complicated enough)
How do you get an AoO in a grapple? If you're grappling, you don't threaten anything. Is there some special provision I'm not aware of?
Bonus attacks seems pretty weird, too. Would they really intentionally design a mechanic (inside a generally broken and badly-designed mechanic, at that) where the only way to use an option is with a rare bonus attack? How many core sources for bonus attacks that don't require taking even a standard action are there, anyway?
-
2010-07-20, 05:23 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Location
- Western Australia
- Gender
Re: [3.5] I borked the rules again...(cause grappling wasn't complicated enough)
That "1 round" thing on pins always bugged the heck out of me too, and I'm pretty sure there are other things I've seen that are impossible or otherwise broken as a result.
I think the only way to make sense of it is to assume that the writer meant, "When you pin someone, they are held immobile for at least the next 1 round -- because they can't escape your pin and move on the same turn". The state of pinning/being pinned does not automatically end.I support paladins and the alignment system.
My Homebrew Gaming Stuff (not updated lately) - My Campaign (ended)
Homebrew licence:
SpoilerAll my homebrew stuff is released under the Open Game License, except where based on non-OGC work or otherwise stated. For Section 15:
<name of homebrew here> Copyright <year first posted>, T. Pederick
-
2010-07-20, 08:54 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Sunnydale
Re: [3.5] I borked the rules again...(cause grappling wasn't complicated enough)
No, that's my memory error. I had thought you didn't threaten any other squares while grappling, but that's incorrect. So the AoO is out in most cases. Something like a combination of Ranged Threat (Dragon # 350) and Ranged Pin (Complete Warrior), where you pin someone's clothing with a missile, might allow you to move a foe you've pinned on an AoO.
-
2010-07-20, 09:14 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
Re: [3.5] I borked the rules again...(cause grappling wasn't complicated enough)
Moving a Grappled enemy doesn't require that they be pinned. (At least not according to the Rules Compendium). It just requires that they be Grappled.
Also, a Grapple could have more then one person involved. So it's possible for a pinned enemy to be moved if 2 or more people are working together.
-
2010-07-20, 09:31 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Carnegie Mellon
- Gender
Re: [3.5] I borked the rules again...(cause grappling wasn't complicated enough)
Love the Third Amendment?
-
2010-07-20, 09:35 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
Re: [3.5] I borked the rules again...(cause grappling wasn't complicated enough)
^ Dragon needs fly-by attack then!
-
2010-07-20, 09:39 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Seattle, WA
- Gender
Re: [3.5] I borked the rules again...(cause grappling wasn't complicated enough)
Well, in fairness, most dragons who grab people use Snatch, which allows you to take a -20 penalty to be treated as non-grappling. Since you aren't grappling, you can move as you wish, including completing your Fly-by Attack.
And I know you don't have to pin a fool to move him, but you do get a +4 bonus to move him when you pin him, and yet its nearly impossible to do both at the same time, Curmudgeon's overly complicated example of multigrapple-and-release not withstanding.
-
2010-07-20, 09:44 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Carnegie Mellon
- Gender
Re: [3.5] I borked the rules again...(cause grappling wasn't complicated enough)
Somehow, I've never read about the Snatch ability. Thanks!
As for the pin-and-move, it probably makes sense to have a pin last until broken, without needing another check each round... inasmuch as anything in the grappling rules makes any sense whatso-goddamn-ever (that is to say, not at all).Love the Third Amendment?
-
2010-07-20, 09:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2010
- Location
- ganiseville GA
- Gender
Re: [3.5] I borked the rules again...(cause grappling wasn't complicated enough)
That makes even less sense then anything else! What are you going to do, gently push him with an arrow from 30ft away?
EDT: Very ninja'd, talking about ranged pin sillyness.Last edited by Fouredged Sword; 2010-07-20 at 09:49 AM.
-
2010-07-20, 10:00 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- New Orleans and abroad
- Gender
Re: [3.5] I borked the rules again...(cause grappling wasn't complicated enough)
I would assume one of the following:
1) The 1-round pin lasts until the end of your next turn, allowing you to do both; or
2) Specific trumps general. In general moving a grappled opponent is a standard action; the specific text on pinning an opponent specifically offers moving a pinned opponent as an option, so you can go ahead and do it (presumably by making a grapple check (as the next part of your full attack) as per the first line of the text that gives the options for pinning).
Either way the rules clearly intend for you to be able to move a pinned opponent so pick one of these two options and houserule it in.
apLast edited by Another_Poet; 2010-07-20 at 10:27 AM.
I just published my first novella, Lúnasa Days, a modern fantasy with a subtle, uncertain magic.
You can grab it on Kindle or paperback.
Proud to GM two Warhammer Adventures:
Plays as Ulrich, Student of Law
-
2010-07-20, 10:54 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
Re: [3.5] I borked the rules again...(cause grappling wasn't complicated enough)
You get a +4 bonus to move an enemy when he is pinned, not just when you pin him. Thus if someone else pins him while you are both grappling him, you get a bonus to move him. Otherwise, the bonus doesn't apply without a house rule.
It's not quite as bad as the Overrun rules, which are impossible to use. But it's close.
-
2010-07-20, 10:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Seattle, WA
- Gender
Re: [3.5] I borked the rules again...(cause grappling wasn't complicated enough)
Ah, but Person_Man, you ONLY get the +4 bonus to move a pinned opponent provided you and he are the only people in the grapple.
Originally Posted by SRD
Its impossible to claim the +4 bonus unless you have some way of gaining extra standard actions. Another way that I forgot about is WRT. If someone WRTed you after your turn, and you had your opponent pinned, you could drag them somewhere with your WRT turn, since a full turn hasn't passed.
-
2010-07-20, 12:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
Re: [3.5] I borked the rules again...(cause grappling wasn't complicated enough)
Pinning and moving your foe both require the equivalent of an attack, not a standard action. To do what you want, you need a Base Attack Bonus of +6 or higher.
-
2010-07-20, 12:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Seattle, WA
- Gender
Re: [3.5] I borked the rules again...(cause grappling wasn't complicated enough)
Check again.
Originally Posted by SRD
EDIT: Can you voluntarily fail a grapple check? If I'm grappling with my buddy Bob the Fighter, and we are both hanging onto an orc, by the rules, I have to beat the orc AND Bob's grapple rolls with my roll to move the grapple. Of cource the orc is gonna resist, but Bob probably wouldn't. Can Bob just choose to fail his check to resist moving the grapple?
-
2010-07-20, 12:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- Sunnydale
Re: [3.5] I borked the rules again...(cause grappling wasn't complicated enough)
Doesn't look like it.
Repeatedly in a grapple, you need to make opposed grapple checks against an opponent. A grapple check is like a melee attack roll. Your attack bonus on a grapple check is:
Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier
-
2010-07-20, 12:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Location
- Western Australia
- Gender
Re: [3.5] I borked the rules again...(cause grappling wasn't complicated enough)
Its absence there isn't definitive proof. There are several bits that suggest that characters in the grapple don't have to make a grapple check if they don't want to oppose you (subtly different to voluntarily failing the check). For instance, under "Escape from grapple", it says:
(Opponents don’t have to try to hold you if they don’t want to.)I support paladins and the alignment system.
My Homebrew Gaming Stuff (not updated lately) - My Campaign (ended)
Homebrew licence:
SpoilerAll my homebrew stuff is released under the Open Game License, except where based on non-OGC work or otherwise stated. For Section 15:
<name of homebrew here> Copyright <year first posted>, T. Pederick
-
2010-07-20, 04:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
Re: [3.5] I borked the rules again...(cause grappling wasn't complicated enough)