Grappling huge critters

[eris]

So why, if a tendriculous is huge, should it be penalized for using it's improved grab ability? Especially when it's got hold of someone in it's maw, why should it take a -20 penalty to keep them there if it doesn't want to be defenseless against the friends of the character in it's maw? Sure it gets a +8 to grapple for being huge...but at what point does a critter no longer have to fight only one person at a time (when grappling). If I put enough HD into a tendriculous to make it gargantuan a PC would be something like a mosquito in the mouth of this huge plant. Would it really have to put that much concentration into keeping a halfling in it's mouth? It really seems to me that critters that are designed to swallow people whole (which is not at issue here, once they're swallowed accd to my reading of the rules anyway, they are no longer in an opposed grapple) shouldn't be hamstrung when trying to do what they're designed to do. Anybody got a house-rule on this that makes sense?

[Antoine7]

I'm not sure of the mechanical aspect, but the penalty fades when a certain size difference occurs (like Huge and small) it should be under the swallow hole or improve grad entry in the MM I.

[eris]

My problem is that a huge critter only gets a +8 to grappling which converts to a -12 if the grappler doesn't want to be flat-footed. I did check up on the Swallow Whole entry, and once swallowed, this problem goes away because only the grapplee is considered grappled while the swallower is then free to attack other opponents. In the case of the Tendriculous, this penalty will last for one round while the critter tries to swallow the PC. Lucky for Tendriculous, it's a Plant and not subject to sneak attacks.

Consider a Kraken: It's Gargantuan and grapples at +44. Let us assume that this critter has a sailor in one of it's tentacles. Reading the "combat" section of the Kraken, I see that it will seek to take free shots (AoOs) against anyone who attacks an arm or tentacle (which means it is taking the -20 penalty so it's currently grappling at +24). Being a CR12, let's assume lv12 PCs who might have say a +15-20 to grapple. Not bad, they've got a chance but Kraken still has a 5-9 pt advantage. Now, lets say he's got one Sailor and he gets another one...is the -20 penalty cumulative per grapple? Can it grapple as many foes as it has limbs?

Now consider a Gibbering Mouther: GM's JOB is to grapple people. Looking at it, it could perhaps be assumed that if it makes six bite attacks in one round but only one of them succeeds in a grapple that it could continue attacking the next rd even while maintaining the hold it has. But there is no special quality or ability that specifically says so. No rules' lawyer has ever tried to convince me that the mouther should be taking a -20 penalty on all attacks so long as it is grappling someone...seriously, just look at the grotesquery of it...but still: there is no ability really mentioned in it's description that gives it a pass on the -20 penalty.

So if a gibbering mouther is so impossibly disgusting that it should be able to bend the rules, why couldn't a Kraken also stretch them...it is bigger than the ship the PCs are on...the PCs are gnats in comparison...should the Kraken really have to take a -20 penalty? The mouther doesn't...

Previous editions of dnd had horrendous grappling systems, and the d20 version is definitely the best stab ever taken at this attack form...but still...SHOULD a 7' Barbarian really have much of a chance wrestling a Kraken? I mean sure the barbarian is strong and raging and all, but the tentacle itself is wider than a horse...and connected to something much, much larger...

[Vegepygmy]

eris wrote:

My problem is that a huge critter only gets a +8 to grappling which converts to a -12 if the grappler doesn't want to be flat-footed.

Pick up and hold a 2 year-old child who is kicking, screaming, and struggling against you with all their might.

Now defend yourself from the child's adult parent.

That's basically what you're talking about. Personally, I don't think the penalties are inappropriate.

[Jimmy]

Vegepygmy wrote:

Pick up and hold a 2 year-old child who is kicking, screaming, and struggling against you with all their might.

Now defend yourself from the child's adult parent.

That's basically what you're talking about. Personally, I don't think the penalties are inappropriate.

That example is on the right track, but it doesn't take the size differences into account (the adult on adult part) or what Eris is focusing on; creatures that are designed specifically to grapple with multiple appendages and swallow whole.

In my own campaigns this has come about, and dampened the danger the creatures represented substantially. Disappointing really; it's no wonder grappling is avoided by my players.

I think Eris may agree with this though; I think feats to negate the -20 could be added to those available for monsters. Perhaps 'Improved Swallow' dropping the penalty to -10, and 'Greater Improved Swallow' negating it completely? The latter possibly only available to creatures of Huge+ size, or with 6+ grappling tendrils/apendages, or a required amount of HD? Something along those lines.

I think feats like that would allow a creature such as the Kraken to function in a more appropriately challenging manner.

I also agree that the present system is the best version yet.

Ideas!
J-

[The White Toymaker]

Jimmy wrote:

I think Eris may agree with this though; I think feats to negate the -20 could be added to those available for monsters. Perhaps 'Improved Swallow' dropping the penalty to -10, and 'Greater Improved Swallow' negating it completely? The latter possibly only available to creatures of Huge+ size, or with 6+ grappling tendrils/apendages, or a required amount of HD? Something along those lines.

I think feats like that would allow a creature such as the Kraken to function in a more appropriately challenging manner.

I also agree that the present system is the best version yet.

Ideas!
J-

Savage Species -- Improved Multigrab, Greater Multigrab. I think it requires Improved Grab and maybe Multiattack, and allows the creature to grapple with just that part of the body for a -10 Penalty or (if they have Greater Multigrab) no penalty. I discovered it when I was building an eight-armed Marilith whose purpose was to wreak more havoc in one round than should be possible -- Perfect Multiweapon Fighting (32 attacks per round without haste) and Greater Multigrab (for the ability to grapple/constrict a foe with just her coils) went a long way.

[silenttimo]

Vegepygmy wrote:

eris wrote:

My problem is that a huge critter only gets a +8 to grappling which converts to a -12 if the grappler doesn't want to be flat-footed.

Pick up and hold a 2 year-old child who is kicking, screaming, and struggling against you with all their might.

Now defend yourself from the child's adult parent.

That's basically what you're talking about. Personally, I don't think the penalties are inappropriate.

Yeah, ok, however the thing is if I am trying to get a hold on a kid, I try NOT TO HURT or HARM him.

If I am fighting vs his father, I know he is trying to hurt me, so I will try TO HURT him.

That's makes a big difference !!

And I don't think a crule and wild D&D monster tries to grapple a ferocious adventurer just for fun !

No rule is perfect, but the 3rd ed. rules are what D&D should have been from the begining. Still a few things may be strange...

[Phil. L]

If you didn't use these grappling rules a creature like a kraken could easily inflict a TPK on a party. It would end up grappling the entire party and crushing them to death. None of the rules in D&D are perfect. It's a game that tries to mimic reality, but cannot truly represent it, so does the best it can. Reality can be depressing as well, and you have to give PCs a fighting chance even if in 'reality' they wouldn't.

[Vegepygmy]

silenttimo wrote:

Yeah, ok, however the thing is if I am trying to get a hold on a kid, I try NOT TO HURT or HARM him.

And the kid isn't (1) skilled in the use of daggers and (2) trying to poke you with one, either.

The point I'm trying to illustrate is that the size advantage we're talking about (Medium vs. Huge) isn't actually that significant. It's enough to almost guarantee the Huge creature a victory over the Medium creature in a one-on-one fight, but not so much that the Huge creature can essentially ignore the Medium creature's presence.

[Xellan]

Being flat-footed for a creature like a Tendriculous doesn't reduce its combat abilities all /that/ much.

Being flat-footed means the creature can't make attacks of opportunity and it loses its dex bonus, neither of which affect it that much as its Dex bonus is -1 and it only loses a single AoO.

Also, not only does it have Improved Grab, but it can transfer its prey to the mouth with a free action, automatically dealing bite damage. Swallowing its prey is a grapple check, which is a free action. I remember reading somewhere that when grapple to deal damage, you can make as many grapple checks as you have attacks; it seems reasonable then to make the creature lose its bite attack in favor of swallowing the opponent (for a number of reasons).

So let me lay out this scenario for you:

Tenriculous' turn:
1) One tendril attack hits and does damage. Initiate grapple as free action. Grapple succeeds.
2) Transfer victim to mouth as a free action, automatically dealing bite damage.
3) Use bite attack to make a grapple check and swallow. Victim has to save or be paralyzed.
4) Use other tendril attack to do damage and initiate a new grapple check. If successful, another morsel is popped into its mouth (and automatically bitten).

And the Tendriculous' attack sequence is the same whether it uses a full attack or not; it /always/ gets a bite and 2 tendrils. It pays to have this creature as mobile as possible to limit the number of attacks a party can lay on it.

Some more points:
* Free actions aren't limited to one per round.
* A creature can move up to half its speed with a successful grapple check. A tendriculous with its speed 20 can still move 10 feet, which may be enough to prevent the party from having a full attack option.
* The attack scenario above assumes all grapple checks are a success. Obviously things would go differently should any of them fail.
* Once the creature's belly is full, it should retreat, beating off pursuers with tendril attacks the whole way, using its bite whenever someone doesn't manage to crawl out of its gullet and back into its mouth.

Finally, once the victim is in the critter's mouth, I'd rule that the victim doesn't have any way to hinder movement. It may not be official, but it's reasonable. Being flatfooted shouldn't often come into play here, but even when it does, it doesn't hinder this creature much at all.