Aaron Armstrong's page

Fighters have some advantages to help them keep an edge with grapple. They usually have higher STR score (increase bonus to grapple skill). They also have plenty of bonus feats and can choose Improved Grapple, or equivalent.

Grappling is far for being resolved I think...

Well, I have always been of the opinion that being able to use the SKILL Escape Artist has and continues to ruin Grappling. These new rules simplify the sequence of events but instead of making it more of a boon to the fighter or barbarian it instead shifts it VASTLY in the favor of the rogue and other "more skillful" classes.

I support my case by pointing out that the new rules have even watered down the Improved Grapple Feat, making it grant a mere paltry +2 bonus to the grapple instead of the much more substantial bonus granted to even a level 1 Rogue with the Escape Artist skill (example Rogue having a Dex Mod of +2, with two skill ranks in Escape Artist for a total +7 opposed modifier)

Does anybody else agree with me when I state that the grapple skill has been hamstrung for fighters to the point of being an almost useless maneuver?

I propose that Escape Artist can only be used to break out of the Grappled or Pinned condition after a Concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the Grappler's CMB + damage taken.

I suggest this because I think it makes sense that somebody being grappled would need to be able to focus in order to break free of a continuous effort of others to restrain and subdue them.

Dan Raymond wrote:

How about Grappling being a Skill?

Yes!

Grapple as a skill will remove the BAB component, thus helping caracters who want to specialized the chance to, whichever class they choose.

...And maybe put the whole Combat Maneuver as a skill. "Improved"-feats would still give bonuses, but only to specific combat maneuver action (trip, sunder, grapple...)

No!

Making grapple or any other combat maneuver a skill does not make sense (at least to me) for the following reason:

By removing the BAB component of any combat maneuver, you cripple the ONLY advantage that the combat-oriented classes have over the skill or magic based classes (Most notably the fighter, who at this point only gets 2 skills)- their attack prowess.

Of course (though, to be fair, the D20 Dagger, Rapier and Bastard Sword hardly seem to correspond to any particular historical or real life weapons), but that's also true of Hand Axe, Battle Axe and Great Axe, yet these are happily grouped together for PathFinder. We're not looking at reality simulation here, but logical implementation of abstracted combat rules.

Of course, I agree with you about stat whoring, which is why I prefer AD&D to any version of D20, but this is hardly the place for us to discuss that. D20 is what it is.

Interesting that you should say that. Dagger is a generic term for knife, which has been the preferred method of killing people for millennium before the advent of firearms. Rapiers are known for their use for at least 2 centuries (admittedly mostly in Europe) and the bastard sword CERTAINLY has historical precedent. It is the step-cousin (Hand-and-a-half sword) to the Zweihander, the Greatsword, the Claymore and the Katana. Not nearly as popular as the aforementioned weapons, but there nonetheless. I'm not as certain as to the axes you mentioned.

Also, isn't logic based upon the abstract concept of ones' perception of reality? Can't abstract combat rules that contain modifiers for statistics such as BAB, enchantments and personal characteristics also include weapon modifiers apart from situational concealment, higher ground or sickness/fear?

I concur, up to a point. There is a distinct difference in the heft and use of light and heavy blades. I truly lament the demise of the reach and damage specification modifiers of aD&D for that exact reason. Speaking from experience, there is a DEFINITE disparity between a dagger, a rapier and and a bastard sword. Grouping all three of these blades into a single group would be folly.

What I suggest instead is to hearken back to the days of 2nd Edition, and modify and simplify that weapons table in order to make the physical combat classes or distinctive in their own right once again.

Maybe I'm nostalgic for the good old days of RPing, when it was more about actually playing a character instead of stat-whoring......

Yeah, that's not a bad idea. I am generally not in favour of exchanging AB for AC on a 1:1 basis (I'm looking at you, Shock Trooper), but it does seem like Combat Expertise is getting the short end of the stick here.

Agreed. I have played almost exclusively as a fighter since back in the days of 1st Ed (I know, I'm a glutton for punishment). The term "Combat Expertise" means exactly that- he is an expert at his form of combat, not that he relies upon mental processes to fight more defensively, which is what this new take on the feat does.

Muscle memory plays the main role in most combat maneuvers, one of the main reasons why the spell-casting classes have--and rightfully so- much slower BAB progression- they rely upon intellect, wisdom or force of personality rather than their muscles or reflexes. At the very least; I suggest making the limit dependent upon your Strength or Dexterity bonus, whichever is the greater of the two. At worst, return it to its original wording.

On the other hand, I have always thought that having to take another feat (Improved Combat Expertise) in order to make this feat worth using at higher levels as needless further punishment (see Fighter lack of skills and class abilities)for not choosing a Rogue or Barbarian to be your main physical combat class. My suggestion is as follows:

Combat Expertise [General]
Prerequisites: Str or Dex 13
Benefit: When you use an attack action or the full attack action in melee combat, you may take a penalty up to as much as your Base Attack Bonus + your Strength or Dexterity modifier (whichever is greater) and add the same number to your Armor Class. The changes to attack rolls and Armor Class last until your next action.