Pelastour

William Fisher's page

40 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


I'm with Abraham spalding on this one. Stop thinking so hard. As a physicist, I often catch myself thinking too realistically. It's magic.

How about this to appease the masses who want stats for the bird?

"An onyx silhouette of a bird of prey swoops from the heavens toward the target, performs a disarm or steal combat maneuver (wearer’s choice, CMB +16), and appears on the wearer's hand. The silhouette does not provoke an attack of opportunity. If the hand wearing the glove is empty, the item appears your hand. If the gloved hand is occupied, the item appears at your feet. The silhouette then disappears."

Remove the term "shadow falcon". The use of that phrase, particularly in italics implies that more information is to be found elsewhere. Use the term only in the name.

Other thoughts floating around are similar to previous comments. Maybe the item is reusable until it succeeds once per day. What if it were reusable as many times as you want until it retrieves a magic item? Then it has a reasonable limitation and the added effect of being a weak detect magic.

Also, the best written entry I've seen so far.


I'll bump the complaint about the name. Just doesn't fit with its descriptor. Did you cut some flavor text about how it works?

I tend to agree with most of the complaints here but like the idea, so I'll try a rework using my own thoughts and those of previous comments.

"When lit, this candle burns with a pale, bluish glow, shedding light as a normal candle. Its flame cannot be extinguished by any undead creature including haunts. The aura of the candle dulls the spirits that power haunts. Anyone within a 20-foot radius of the candle targeted by a haunt receives a +2 bonus on any check to notice the haunt before it manifests. If a haunt is noticed by an ally within the aura radius, the haunt will manifest on initiative 5 instead of 10. The candle burns for a total of one hour, after which it is destroyed."

I also agree that the construction spell should be Detect Undead.

Having not used haunts, let me know if I broke any rules.


So they're from Baldur's Gate?

Also, that's quite a monk order flooding the world with 24k gold items.

I will agree that there is a lot more flavor here than necessary. My biggest complaint is just writing. Fewer words with greater impact.

Mechanically this seems fine to me. The complaints about needing to meditate 5 hours per day are understandable from the rest of the party, but that's just how monks roll. Patience... Anyway, you will only lose 5 hours every other day. If you burn them all, you have none left to store anyway, so you wait a day. Storage is to move points from a day that you didn't need them all to a day that you need more than usual. I assume you walk around with the beads full much of the time and then the day after a big encounter you relax, heal, and put ki in the beads. Doesn't seem like much of an interruption to me since everyone else will be licking their wounds too.

I also don't see the 1d6 for one round as weak, I see it as a choice. Most of the time a ki point will be worth more as a monk ability, but if you find yourself in a tough situation, slightly more damage (or specifically fire damage) may be important. The major power is storage. Flaming fists is a bonus.

Not a WOW item to me, but certainly better to have than not. I'd like to see it in an available magic item list, but I'm not sure it's a winner here.


The name, awesome. Don't care if the comments below would make it out of place. Keep it.

Ok, the numbers of ounces have been discussed ad nauseam. But one last question. If the mixing container is 8oz, but the storage containers are 25oz, what happens when you try to call on the fifth dose? Or when mixing, aren't you going to use 4oz of each? The math of keeping track here is just not tenable for many players. Use doses (nice integers) and have the mixing container be twice the size of a dose.

I'll also agree that adjusting a dial sounds like a move action, especially in combat. I'd just have it be thought activated and leave the potion drinking as a move action (since it is already in hand).

Basically I like the idea, but the flavor muddied it up. Put the flavor in the name and let the mechanics be simple.


I will agree with Jeremiziah immediately. The first sentence made me stumble. Also, "metal bands that expand to completely surround the possessor" immediately makes me think Magneto. If that is not the image you were going for, I'd suggest a rewrite. Neither of these are very dragony, as has been said many times, so I'm not a fan of the flavor.

However, the movement by lightning is excellent. That is the part of this item that I would run with. Include Lightning Bolt as a creation requirement and use its mechanic with a fixed number of damage dice. I'd agree with 5d6 as well. I would trade the damage aura for the full 120ft bolt length. I think my version would go something like this:

"Once per day, as a standard action, the possessor can transform himself, his gear, and a carried familiar into a living bolt of lightning extending from his space in a line as per the Lightning Bolt spell. The bolt inflicts 5d6 points of electricity damage (Reflex DC 16 for half and spell resistance applies). The possessor appears in the square where the bolt ends. This can be caused by barriers, as per the spell, or if the bolt does not overcome the spell resistance of a creature. If stopped by a spell resistance roll, the possessor takes 2d6 points of electricity damage (Fortitude DC 16 for half and spell resistance applies)"

Using the spell provides a flavor bonus as well. The line of the spell "It can melt metals with a low melting point, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, or bronze" means the bands SHOULD be made of iron or they might destroy themselves.

What we have in this version is an always on electricity resistance (always good) and a once per day, half strength Lightning Bolt, which, oh by the way, can move you. The added range and barrier destruction (don't need a dwarven lockpick) makes this a very intriguing item that I'd love to have. A PC would have to decide if blasting through a locked door without knowing what is on the other side is a good idea. Admittedly the cost may have just skyrocketed though... I'll leave that part as an exercise for the reader.

Nitpicky Details: An iron sphere 4 inches in diameter would weigh a lot more than 1lb. Say it's hollow.


I'll tend to agree with some of the judges' opinions. This is a good concept that needs an editor. As an overview, while reading it the first time, I thought to myself "Wow, this is complicated and long-winded for such a short word count."

The idea of a shaped channeling item is quite interesting and using the standard lantern shapes adds flavor. Even its use as a daylight lantern is quite interesting. However, the list of powers is too long and a bit disconnected.

First, the -2 penalty for undead against channeling is out of place. At a minimum this should be rewritten to say "Three times per day, the wielder may channel positive energy through the lantern, changing the area of the channeling to match the current area of the light effect. Undead suffer a -2 penalty to Will saves against this channel energy." Doesn't make it sound like the -2 is always on even for other clerics (is it?)

Second, the 5' radius out to 400ft is just odd. Make it "line of sight to a single target" and be done with it.

Third, giving a boost to a single domain is strange in general but why is it Glory? Why not Good, or Fire, or SUN for heaven's sake... I would just drop this power entirely. As has been stated in previous discussions, allowing an item to use an attribute to increase its power is nonstandard and can cause balance issues. Even leaving it alone, shouldn't the creator then be required to be able to channel positive energy at a minimum and possibly even be a cleric with the Glory domain?

Nitpicky details: Why can't I channel negative energy in the same way, other than the fact that it is "Pious" in the name? Even that is just a defacto use of the word. It simply means devoted to religion.


This thread is perhaps the most useful on the boards.

I would request of those artistic and computer inclined to make a pdf character sheet that automatically calculates many numbers based on input boxes, particularly ability bonuses to skills, class skill bonuses, and spell save DCs. Also a stat block template that fits a 3x5 or 4x6 card would be unbelievably helpful to GMs out there.

Maybe Ill give this a try... Ive never made an interactive pdf and im not artistic so I cant promise much.


This is why, more and more, I like going to an existing mechanic. If CMB were an "attack," it would be clear which bonuses applied. If it were opposed by a Maneuver AC, it would be clear which bonuses applied. No new mechanics, no opposed rolls that people seem to hate, all the detail some crave.


Jack Townsend wrote:
Which would kill the Shield-Fighting Style. Enemy has a shield? Grapple the idiot! It might seems realistic but brings up balancing issues.

It will already give you a penalty as written, -4 for having a hand full, I'm actually making them more useful by having it apply to CMB to begin with. You can always drop the shield anyway. Besides, grapple isn't the fastest way to kill people anyway, the damage output is pretty low. If you want to kill shield guy, its better to just use a sword.


Dogbert wrote:


However William has a good point, said modifier would only apply to initiate the grapple, once grappling shields are pinned aside.

Actually, I realize there is already a mechanic for this that can be extended. There is already a -4 to CMB if one hand is full. Have a weapon give -4 to CMB on initiation, but the shield bonus applies. Then write into "grappled" that the shield gives a penalty to CMB checks. I would argue that it should be bigger than the penalty for a weapon since it is more unwieldy; perhaps -6? This way, the shield is a bonus until a grapple has succeeded, and then it is a penalty, yet we have changed no overall mechanic.


lastknightleft wrote:


I would have to disagree with the shield spell affecting grapling, it is an armor bonus, unless you also allow fighters with shields to apply their shield bonus to the CMB you are doing melee a diservice by unfairly advantaging the spellcasters.

I can see ANY shield bonus applying, but only to initiate grapple. If you have a tower shield, you can probably fend off would be grapplers quite well. Once in a grapple though, a shield is probably a big disadvantage. This may make grapple too complicated, so I am ok with it being ignored.


Im glad to see people willing to analyze in depth. Good to see you in the new posts Robert. Ive just returned (through the snow) from a successful grapple attempt. I can say that even with the current rules, a rogue 6 with armor spikes of frost can be quite effective. One round to grapple, one to pin, and from then on I do 5d6 damage per round. I would like to note though that there seems to be no penalty to CMB checks while "pinned"... this is very odd since a pin is practically impossible to escape from. I would suggest that "pinned" contain a severe penalty to CMB.

I am also happy to see the idea of dominant and submissive grapplers along with a reversal mechanic has caught on. I think it is far more realistic than a symmetric grapple and it makes grapple worth trying. If the false defender can immediately pin the false attacker, why would I ever try this? Im already giving up iterative attacks to do unarmed damage, and now I can be pinned and nearly helpless in one round? I think a rework is needed for grapple to be taken seriously.


My biggest point is that the fact that we can have this debate is a problem, whether or not the designers intended there to be a distinction.

If there were no distinction, the escape paragraph should be incorporated into the "this is what can happen when you succeed on a grapple check" paragraph.


Quandary wrote:


There ISN'T currently any "roles" of grappler/grapplee to be reversed.

As written, there is an implied distinction. It is by no means clear and that is my biggest complaint.

"If you successfully grapple an opponent, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold. If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds. Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions."

By referring to "maintaining the hold" and your target not "break(ing) the grapple" seems to imply that the person who initiated is in some control. Combined with the wording of the escape:

"If you are grappled, you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action..."

but there are no further options given, this seems to talk about a submissive character.

The person who initiated the grapple can check to maintain, pin, etc... but the person who was grappled can only attempt to escape. The condition "grappled" is a separate state that grants penalties, nothing more.

This makes more sense since dominance is so key to grappling. However, I can see the argument against reading into the rules. We shouldn't need to. Either plaster the text with words like "grappled" in italics to show that we are using a defined term, or it will imply things.


As I see it, grapple needs several changes and here is what we have come across so far:

1) Rewrite it. The terms used to describe grapple need to be well defined and the possible actions and states need to said explicitly. Now that I have seen what the current grapple rules say and seem to imply, I am more happy with them, but it shouldn't have taken me several days and discussions with many other people to find all the details. See "Is grappling mutual?" in the general discussions if you want to see more details of this being hashed out.

2) Include Dex somehow. The goal of most people versus grapple will be to avoid it. That is Dex based, not Str.

3) Include the concept of a "reversal." In actual grappling, the idea of who is dominant (grappler) versus who is submissive (grapplee) is very important. We have found that such concepts are buried in the current grapple text, but in order for some one to go from being the "grapplee" to the "grappler," they must entirely break the grapple and then initiate a new one. Thus, if they break free on their own initiative, the original "grappler" is likely to just re-initiate and nothing is gained. I propose adding some mechanic for reversing a grapple. My current suggestion is that if you fail a grapple check to maintain or keep the "grapplee" from escaping by X (10 seems like a good starting point), the roles of "grappler" and "grapplee" are reversed immediately.


lastknightleft wrote:
I thought once they were tied up getting out of the bonds was an escape artist check against a set DC? That means there is no autosuccess to get out of the bonds.

Ahh, but bonds put on in grapple are maintaining a pin. Thus they are opposed by CMB allowing an auto-success. However, bonds put on outside of a grapple are impervious to auto-success! Again, poor wording of the rules.


Quandary wrote:

Yikes. <FLASHING RED LIGHTS>

I think saying Nat. 20 and Nat. 1 have no effect for Maneuvers would be a reasonable thing.
(This also comes back to the Kitten PINNING me 5% of the time - though that's cute, of course)

Even without thought to the goals of grapple, writing a grapple check as "vs DC (blank)" it implies a skill check, which would remove auto-fail and auto-success. Using a CMB AC (like a touch AC) as has been proposed elsewhere would allow auto-fail and auto-success by current definition. So, regardless of my personal preference, the rules should pick one and go with consistent wording.


hogarth wrote:


Note that this also implies that, no matter how well you tie someone up with ropes, they can escape in about two minutes (since a natural 20 always succeeds).

Extra annoying. Now I'm on your side.


hogarth wrote:


Yes, in the general CMB boilerplate.

Ahh, yes, sorry. In the little wrap text at the top. Then that makes the concept of a DC misleading. That implies a skill roll.


hogarth wrote:
  • If you fail a grapple check, the grapple ends. This seems to imply that no matter how good a grappler you are, you're going to drop your opponent every 2 minutes (on average, since you always fail on a 1).
  • Is it stated anywhere that a CMB check fails on a 1? Is it a skill or an attack? Mechanically, I'm not sure this is a problem anyway. I don't know about you, but I can't think of very many 1-on-1 combats that have lasted 20 rounds. I can't even think of very many party-on-party combats that have lasted 20 rounds, but I do tend to avoid high level campaigns.


    -Archangel- wrote:

    I do not like how the new grapple is defined and plays out. I had a chance to see it at work during my campaign and there are just too many questions about it.

    In what status is the one that initiated the grapple?

    Does only the one who initiated it get the +5 bonus afterwards?
    Why? If the other person also wants to grapple it does not matter who started it. I have personal experience in martial arts grappling and it does not matter who started it. Actually the whole +5 bonus thing is unrealistic.

    See either General Discussion "Is grappling mutual?" or the new Combat board "[CMB] clarifications and changes so far?" There may be a repost from the first to the second, but we have clarified the current grapple rules as well as proposed changes. It may not keep you from using 3.5, but you can see what PF is supposed to be under all the confusion.


    The Wraith wrote:
    In this post (General Discussion -> Is Grappling Mutual ?) there has been an interesting 'wrap-up' of the rules regarding Grapple (the most controversial CMB condition)

    I should note that this wrap up I wrote is only a summary of current rules. We have also discussed several side issues and proposed clarification of the wording. My opinion of the current grapple system has actually increased due to the discussion, but it has become clear that it is buried under unclear writing.

    Jason, I can being a repost campaign if you would like, or have the designers been hovering over the CMB discussions on the general boards too? I think we have found the exact words and phrases that hide the desired mechanics of grappling and we have had some suggestions for minor modifications that might help clarity, realism, and flow of grapple significantly.


    The Wraith wrote:

    I just posted William Fisher's 'Grapple wrap-up' on 'Combat -> CMB Clarification and Changes so Far'.

    I think it would be better to continue our discussion there (or, at least, here AND there), in order to receive feedback from Paizo's staff (especially on our guess on the difference between 'grappler' and 'grapplee').

    This is only my humble suggestion, but I think it would be better not to disperse our ideas among the forums, since now the proper ones are open...

    I was not aware a CMB board had appeared yet; that's the only reason I had continued here. Ill see you in the next room.


    Now I suppose it is time to start picking at small details of grapple. I have been playing a grapple based character, so I have noticed a few things.

    When holding a melee touch spell, when does the spell discharge during a grapple? Since there is no longer a touch attack to initiate grapple, does the spell ever discharge (technically)? An obvious place for the discharge is on a successful grapple check. However, does a failed grapple check mean I failed to grapple and the spell discharges, or does it mean I failed to touch the opponent entirely? By removing the touch attack, we have made this process unclear.


    Ok, here is the new full example of the grapple rules as written in the Beta book.

    CMB = BAB + STR + Special size modifier

    Round 1: Attacker: As a standard action, the attacker rolls a D20 + CMB versus a DC of 15 + CMB of the defender. If the test fails, both characters remain free. If successful, the attacker becomes the grappler and the defender becomes the grapplee. Both gain the status "grappled" indicated below:

    grappled: character cannot move, suffers -4 Dex, suffers -2 to attack, suffers -2 to CMB except to continue or escape the current grapple, can take no actions that require two hands to perform, cannot make attacks of opportunity, can only cast spells if they succeed at a DC 15 + spell level Spellcraft check

    Round 1: Defender: You can do nothing and accept the grapple.
    Or
    As a standard action, attempt to break the grapple by rolling D20 + CMB versus a DC of 15 + CMB of the attacker. Failure maintains the grapple and grants the attacker +5 on further checks. This does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
    Or
    As a standard action, attempt to break the grapple by rolling D20 + Escape Artist versus a DC of 10 + CMB of the attacker. Failure maintains the grapple and grants the attacker +5 on further checks. This does provoke attacks of opportunity.

    Round 2: Attacker: You can do nothing and drop the grapple
    Or
    As a standard action, attempt to maintain grapple by rolling D20 + CMB (+5 if defender tried and failed to escape) versus a DC of 15 + CMB of the defender. Failure frees both characters from the grapple. Success maintains the grapple and grants a +5 on further checks (can only be granted once, does not stack with +5 due to defender failing to escape). Success allows the attacker to choose among 3 actions:
    Move: The attacker can move both himself and the defender up to half his movement. The defender is placed in a hazardous square, he can immediately attempt to break the grapple by rolling D20 + CMB + 4 (bonus for imperative) versus 15 + CMB of the attacker.
    Attack: Inflict unarmed damage to the defender.
    Pin: Give the defender the "pinned" condition. The attacker keeps the "grappled" condition but also loses his Dex bonus to AC.

    pinned: character cannot move, is flat-footed, suffers -4AC, can take only verbal and mental actions, can only cast spells (without somatic or material components, unless the material was already in hand) if they succeed at a DC 15 + spell level Spellcraft check

    Round 2: Defender: See Defender Round 1

    Repeat Round 2 until death or a failure do us part


    Carnivorous_Bean wrote:
    There are two problems like this. For one, there's a huge amount of "noise" to a small amount of "signal" -- since they scream bloody murder about EVERYTHING, it's hard to tell from their feedback what really needs to be changed, and what they're complaining about simply because it exists.

    This is exactly why I've been trying to get some logical, step by step discussions about what is wrong with Pathfinder at the moment. Rather than just complain and storm off to another system, I try to analyze exactly what phrasing makes the current rules unclear and what aspects of the system are missing as far as fun or accuracy are concerned. I know the Combat playtest boards aren't there yet, but as far as im concerned, discussion can never start too early. Over the past few days I've been thinking out loud in the thread "Is grappling mutual?" along with The Wraith, Robert Brambley, and Adam Olsen (OP) and I think we've made some real progress in discovering just what is confusing and dissatisfying about the current grapple rules. We have found that it is better than we thought, just hidden behind confusing writing, and can be modified to be more realistic without changing the current system too much.

    I know this is the opposite of the original post topic, but I hope some people will join me in my position of analyzing what we don't like before abandoning ship. Grapple is just my current project. I plan to move to different aspects of the game I don't like as the previous is resolved. It's not often that we get the opportunity to participate in a BETA for a new rule set, so I think we should take advantage of this opportunity to get rules we do like.


    The Wraith wrote:
    So, basically, BOTH characters would still benefit from Uncanny Dodge, if they possess it;

    I don't see it that way. In fact, this all seems resolved by the line:

    "He still loses his Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized."

    That along with the definition of "pinned" being:

    "A pinned creature cannot move..."

    So I believe the implication is that Uncanny Dodge will not help someone in the "pinned" condition. It will, however, help the grappler doing the pinning, since they lose their Dex bonus to AC, but are still mobile.

    It actually all works out. When both are "grappled" there is little advantage for either, so they both take penalties to AC. Once someone becomes pinned, the dominant character can now make use of Uncanny Dodge since they have a major advantage (free limbs and such, not being used so much in the struggle now that the opponent is submissive) but the pinned character cannot, since they are almost entirely immobile.

    This is another case though where the wording is too vague. The rules for Uncanny Dodge, Flat-Footed, pinned, etc should all reference a well defined concept of "immobile" to clear this up.


    Robert Brambley wrote:
    It is worth mentioning that when/if this happens, the (now) defender no longer receives that +5 bonus on his CMB checks that he may have been getting as a result of a previous failure on the (now) attacker's part.

    Good point, very true.

    We should run the numbers to see if 10 is a good threshold, but that's about where I would have put it. It should be difficult, but not impossible within the D20 range. Perhaps a 20 could always allow it? That may be too much reversal chance for a lvl1 Wizard vs a giant tentacle beast. A 20 is a reversal assuming the total score is still a success? Just thinking out loud here.


    Robert Brambley wrote:
    I think the +5 is applied beginning THAT round; the verbage in the BETA indicates that if the defender didn't successfully free himself in round 1, your subsequent attempts (beginning round 2) receives the +5 bonus.

    I can see that interpretation. At first I read it as meaning the retests by the grappler, but that distinction isn't there. Another case of the rules being too ambiguous, but I do agree.

    Robert Brambley wrote:
    Its worth pointing out for the sake of being concise, that while pinned - the only spells that can be cast with taht Spellcraft check is those without V or S components.

    True, I just left it out since it is technically redundant. Im already taking over a thread with many long posts that isn't technically supposed to be here (should be in playtest, but it doesn't exist yet), so I was just trying to be concise.

    Robert Brambley wrote:
    Finally; the GRAPPLER upon pinning the other is said in the BETA rules to still be "GRAPPLED" condition, BUT loses his dexterity. The GRAPLEE who pinned is said to be "FLAT-FOOTED"

    This I just blatantly didn't type. Ill put out a fully corrected post in a bit after everyone gets a chance to find my mistakes.

    Robert Brambley wrote:

    This seems wrong to me. Both lose DEX that is true; but the one who is pinned maintains his DEX if he has UNCANNY DODGE. The grappler who pinned him simply "loses dexterity" so Uncanny Dodge does not help. Thus the grappler can suffer sneak attacks and he's not even the one pinned - meanwhile the one pinned can avoid those attacks if he is a rogue or barbarian.

    I believe the wording in the BETA needs to remove the aspect of the grappler "...but loses his dexterity" upon pinning someone.

    Furthermore, I don't think that the person Pinned should be "flat-footed" I think he needs to "Lose his Dexterity" since he's held "immobile." Uncanny dodge should not help someone who is pinned - if it doesn't while running, or climbing, it shouldn't while pinned.

    I agree with all this and just hadn't noticed yet. I've now switched to considering what it means to be in grapple, so I'll see what I can come up with. I agree that the grappler should lose some dex, but not all and not be flat-footed. I also agree that the technicality of Uncany Dodge is worrisome. The pinned character should be subject to sneak attacks. Could be as simple as just putting a note in Uncanny Dodge.


    Having studied grapple as it stands, it is not as hopeless as it seemed before. However, it is still flawed.

    As an attempt to simulate real grappling, it lacks the very important concept of a reversal. In order for the "grapplee" to be come the "grappler," he must succeed in breaking completely free of the grapple (either on his initiative or the initiative of the grappler) and then spend his next initiative initiating grapple. If he escaped on his own initiative, the original grappler will likely try to initiate grapple again on his own initiative, placing the grapplee back where he started. I see very few players being willing to spend so many of their precious initiatives to reverse a grapple.

    I propose that we incorporate the concept of a reversal. If at any time in the grapple, the "grappler" fails a check by an amount X, the roles of the grapple are immediately switched. I have not run the numbers to find X, but this would allow a more fluid grapple.


    I thought this might a good point to wrap up the grapple rules as written in the Beta book.

    CMB = BAB + STR + Special size modifier

    Round 1: Attacker: As a standard action, the attacker rolls a D20 + CMB versus a DC of 15 + CMB of the defender. If the test fails, both characters remain free. If successful, the attacker becomes the grappler and the defender becomes the grapplee. Both gain the status "grappled" indicated below:

    grappled: character cannot move, suffers -4 Dex, suffers -2 to attack, suffers -2 to CMB except to continue or escape the current grapple, can take no actions that require two hands to perform, cannot make attacks of opportunity, can only cast spells if they succeed at a DC 15 + spell level spellcraft check

    Round 1: Defender: You can do nothing and accept the grapple.
    Or
    As a standard action, attempt to break the grapple by rolling D20 + CMB versus a DC of 15 + CMB of the attacker. Failure maintains the grapple. This does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
    Or
    As a standard action, attempt to break the grapple by rolling D20 + Escape Artist versus a DC of 10 + CMB of the attacker. Failure maintains the grapple. This does provoke attacks of opportunity.

    Round 2: Attacker: You can do nothing and drop the grapple
    Or
    As a standard action, attempt to maintain grapple by rolling D20 + CMB versus a DC of 15 + CMB of the defender. Failure frees both characters from the grapple. Success maintains the grapple and grants the attacker a +5 bonus to further grapple checks against the defender. Success allows the attacker to choose among 3 actions:
    Move: The attacker can move both himself and the defender up to half his movement. The defender is placed in a hazardous square, he can immediately attempt to break the grapple by rolling D20 + CMB + 4 (bonus for imperative) versus 15 + CMB of the attacker.
    Attack: Inflict unarmed damage to the defender.
    Pin: Give the defender the "pinned" condition. The attacker keeps the "grappled" condition.

    pinned: character cannot move, is flat-footed, suffers -4AC, can take only verbal and mental actions, can only cast spells if they succeed at a DC 15 + spell level spellcraft check

    Round 2: Defender: See Defender Round 1

    Repeat Round 2 until death or a failure do us part


    The Wraith wrote:
    Please check again what I was saying. I am by no means SURE 100% that this is how it works, but this is how I merely THINK it works.

    I have agreed with both you and hogarth above, that "grappler" and "grapplee" are implied by the text. My complaint is that implied isnt good enough. Reading the text literally yields my previous interpretation (which we agree is likely not what was intended), but reading between the lines gives the two implied states of grappling.

    I also agree that grappled is a different effect from being the "grapplee," but again, this is just too confusing.


    hogarth wrote:
    William Fisher wrote:
    A redefinition of a grapple check as a(n unarmed) melee strike would clarify that as well.
    Well, I don't want grapple checks to be opposed by AC.

    True, I agree, it would still be opposed by something like CMB. Im just trying to find clarifications one step at a time.


    hogarth wrote:


    I am anxiously awaiting the opening of the "Combat" section of the playtest (which they should really have focused on before the individual classes, but I digress...) so I can get some clarification on what affects a CMB roll:

    -True Strike?
    -bardic music?
    -Bless?
    -Prayer?
    -Haste?
    -Weapon Focus?
    -flanking?
    -etc., ad nauseam

    A redefinition of a grapple check as a(n unarmed) melee strike would clarify that as well.


    Here is the new brain vomit I have been hashing out.

    Taking into account the “special size modifier,” the question now is, what opposes that melee attack? At the moment the rule is 15+CMB which has been debated on the boards here. Consensus seems to be that this gives the defender too much advantage since D20 is 10.5 on average. The happy medium most people seem to reach is 12+CMB, to maintain some advantage for the defender, but not make CMB based characters completely ineffective. I tend to agree that 15 may be harsh but haven’t done the math. Others apparently have and demonstrate that to achieve the same levels of success as in 3.5, the bonus should be nearer to 12. Fine, but that is not the part that bothers me; it isn’t an innate problem with the system and is very easily fixed by a house rule.

    The problem I have is that Dex has no effect on CMB. Yes, Agile Maneuvers will allow you to use Dex instead of strength, much like Weapon Finesse will allow you to use Dex instead of strength for attacks. However, when training with a weapon you are initially clumsy and use a lot of strength to compensate and make the weapon do what you want. As your skill improves, you use more finesse and less muscle, hence Weapon Finesse being available as an improvement to a character with some training. The problem with CMB is that Dex is the FIRST thing you will try to use when using or avoiding a maneuver, not the second. Early in training you would try to dodge out of your opponent’s reach and then plunge in quickly when you see an opening. Later, once you have trained, you may be willing to enter a grapple where strength matters.

    Perhaps an example will demonstrate. A Wizard is attacked by a foe attempting a maneuver, perhaps a drunken bar patron trying to grapple him. The wizard certainly does not wish to be grappled and as the foe lunges toward him (grapple CMB), the wizard attempts to DODGE out of the way (grapple CMB). This makes no sense. It is the dexterity and athleticism of the wizard that will allow him to avoid this grapple, not his strength. It is true that with the 15 + CMB, the defense always has an advantage, and the wizard could take advantage of that here. But this means that a plant that is rooted to the ground has the same chance to avoid a grapple as a rogue with high dexterity, assuming the sum of their STR and BAB is the same. Something is not right.

    It seems to me that this may be a situation where the old method was better. What was wrong with making a melee touch attack before the grapple check? The main complaint seemed to be that it added another layer, another roll of the dice. Rolling 2D20 is a problem? High level fighters roll 4D20, high level monks 6D20. They brag about the number of dice they have to roll.

    I propose this as the second most basic solution to the CMB problem in grapple: melee touch attack to allow a grapple check, followed by a melee attack (with the afore mentioned “special size bonus”) to initiate grapple. This melee attack (grapple check) could then be made versus 12+CMB, granting the defender some small advantage as is probably realistic, even after the initial touch. This incorporates dexterity as a means of avoiding grapple without adding another mechanic.

    I know it has been proposed on the boards that CMB = BAB + STR + DEX + Size, and that would incorporate much of the same idea for the initial check. I am just not sure how much use dexterity is once in the “grappled” condition. It seems mainly useful for escape, so on the re-tests once “grappled,” im not sure dexterity is of much use to the grappler. Further consideration is required for the IN grapple part. Im still working through the getting into grapple part.


    hogarth wrote:
    The Wraith wrote:
    To me, this seems to confirm that the difference between 'grappler' and 'grapplee' already exists. The only thing that they both have in common is the 'grappled condition'
    I agree; grappling is no longer symmetric like it was in 3.5 (despite the fact that the grappler gets the "grappled" condition).

    Ok, Ill agree that it's implied. But implied is too ambiguous. Define "grappler" and "target" and this would all be much easier.


    Adam Olsen wrote:
    Speaking of which, does an amulet of natural attacks give a bonus on CMB? The answer there could give a clear reason to integrate or separate the mechanic.

    That is a good point, but I don't know the answer. Yay ambiguity!

    As a side note, rather than "special size modifier," what if we just say CMB = BAB + STR - Size. That also seems to get around the need for a new rule. Just a thought...


    I haven't actually reached the part of my rant where I figure out what it means to be IN grapple yet, but Ill go with you.

    "If you successfully grapple an opponent, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold. If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds. Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions."
    (...follow list of actions: Move, Damage, Pin...)
    "If you are grappled, you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action by making a combat maneuver check (DC 15 + opponent’s CMB, this does not provoke an attack of opportunity) or Escape Artist check (DC 10 + opponent’s CMB). If you succeed, you break the grapple and can act normally."

    The problem here is one of turn order. Lets say on my action I grapple you successfully. The next initiative to come up will be YOURS, at which point you can test against me and give me that -5 penalty (or give yourself +5, however you choose to look at it) AND pin/move/strike. Since we are both "grappled," nothing more, there is no distinction. So, to me, this means there is NO ADVANTAGE to initiating a grapple. There is no grappler or grapplee except that in this current initiative, if it's my turn, I can test, and if it's your turn, you can test. In fact, there is a DISADVANTAGE because if you initiate, your opponent gets the 15+CMB. It would be better to bait someone into trying to grapple you than to actually initiate yourself.

    I could see the argument that whoever is opposing the CURRENT test gets 15+CMB, so it switches each turn, but that is not explained in the rules. It is the phrase "continue to make a CHECK each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold" that is ambiguous. The word "check" is not used in the description of Performing a combat maneuver, so there is no definition of the word "check". What does the check oppose? 15+CMB would make sense I suppose. Even then, there is little to no advantage to initiating grapple. 15+CMB is hard enough that in most cases you two will spend several round failing grapple tests until someone finally gets a success, gets the +5 (negating the 15 effectively) and decides to punch you. Why would I give up full attacks with a good weapon to struggle for several rounds and then do d2+STR non-lethal per round, assuming I came out on top? Ok, I know its a good group strategy to tie up a powerful foe while your buddies level his minions, but how many PCs would be willing to trade 20-30 expected damage per round for this?


    Fair enough, I did almost leave Size out entirely. It was the BAB and STR I was most concerned about anyway for PC purposes. Point taken, but it still doesn't seem to need an entirely new mechanic.

    Adam Olsen wrote:

    The "special size modifier" on CMB is the reverse of normal, meaning a Colossal creature gets a +8 on CMB compared to a -8 on attacks.

    I agree with you on "attack roll" being ambiguous.


    This all sounds very familiar to me. My group had a long discussion a month or so ago about how grapple is not just confusing, but it completely misses the purpose of a real grappler: to gain advantage.

    I have been considering what bothers me about the grapple rules, and CMB as a whole, for quite some time and I would like to start thinking out loud here if everyone will allow me. I will try to go step by step, from the most minor changes to most extensive changes, but it may be in a series of posts as I figure out just what bothers me and why.

    First, CMB is redundant. As defined, CMB is:

    "A creature's CMB is determined using the following formula:

    CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier"

    So, in order to perform a combat maneuver:

    "When you perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB to the the result plus any bonuses you might have due to specific feats or abilities."

    If CMB (attack) is calculated as D20+BAB+STR+Size, why do we call it CMB? This is a melee attack.

    Second, to me an "attack roll" implies D20 + BAB + STR + Size. As written, this sentence means D20 + 2*(BAB + STR + Size) + feat/ability bonuses. This cannot be what the writers intended. The phrase "attack roll" should be replaced with "roll D20" here and other locations to eliminate confusion. Or there could be a DEFINITION (in the handy glossary) that "attack roll" means "roll D20". This could eliminate much confusion.

    Either CMB is duplicating a mechanic we already have, i.e. a melee attack, or it is telling us to add the same bonuses twice.

    I propose this as the most basic solution to the CMB problem in grapple: eliminate it. There are already rules for this. In order to enter a grapple, you must "make a melee attack and add any bonuses you might have due to specific feats or abilities." This gives us identical results to the current system and doesnt add new mechanics. As a bonus it DEFINES a grapple attempt as a standard action since a melee attack is a standard action.