Here are some questions, concerns, and suggestions of mine regarding the special combat actions in PRPG.
Sneak Attack - Rogues clearly need some way to be useful against undead and constructs. I think granting them a full sneak attack progression against everything for free in PRPG might be going a little too far though. To me that kind of cuts into the other classes like Fighter who enjoy having more "reliable" damage. Somebody in one of our weekly 3.5 games has an alternate class feature which lets him do half his normal sneak attack damage against things immune to sneak attack though, and that seems "just right" at least for our game.
CMB and Monks (esp Trip) - I hope that PRPG Monks get some kind of CMB bonus, perhaps something that scales with level. It seems kind of lame to get Improved Trip as a bonus feat but end up being bad at tripping people. 3.5 Trip doesn't use BAB and lets monks make up a +4 difference with Improved Trip instead of just +2 in PRPG. I think a monk's Improved Trip could involve judo throws and such as much as footsweeps, and I think monks should have a chance to really excel here.
Grapple - I think grapple, problematic as it was, might have taken too harsh a beating from the nerf stick. As a fan of both mixed martial arts and alien tentacle monsters I'd be sorely disappointed if grappling isn't a viable option for PCs or monsters in PRPG. Before I start ranting and raving on the subject too much though I'd like to get some clarifications on the PRPG grappling rules:
1 - Does winning a grapple check let you inflict damage? This is the case in 3.5, but PRPG doesn't seem to say. A lot of people didn't realize that establishing a hold in 3.5 lets you do unarmed strike damage, so I think this needs to be clarified either way.
2 - The grapple rules say "you must continue to make a check each round to maintain the hold". Does this mean that you have no choice but to make the check or just that the enemy will no longer be grappled if you don't make the check? I'd assume it is the latter, but assumptions and lack of clarity are part of what doomed 3e/3.5 grapple to being one of the least liked subsystems in the D&D.
2a - Assuming that you can choose not to make the check or that you somehow become unable to make the check what happens? Does the grapple end immediately?
2b - What kind of action is the check to maintain the hold, another standard action? If so that's disappointing since it would prevent you from ever employing a "ground and pound" strategy like a MMA fighter (hold the enemy down and punch him in the head a lot)
3 - I assume the free grapple from Improved Grab doesn't require a standard action to use but happens as a free action. Does this end the creature's full attack? In other words, if a bear doing claw/claw/bite grapples after the first claw are the other two attacks lost? 3.5 never clarified this to my satisfaction.
4 - Let's assume I grapple and get a "Held" result on the opponent. He can take pretty much whatever actions he wants except moving away. Does this include grappling me back, or would he have to break my grapple on him before he can try one on me?
4a - Assuming that grappling back while held is a viable tactic, what if he grapples back in and scores a "Grappled" effect? Would this break my Hold, or would our grappling effects on each other be completely independent? I suppose that lacking a free hand (from the Grappled condition) would give me a -4 on my roll if I decided to grapple back the next round
5 - Does PRPG get rid of the 50% chance to hit the wrong target when firing into a grapple? I always use a house rule in 3.5 which reduces your chance to be accidentally hit by 10% for each size catgegory smaller than the grappler you are. This way a giant or a dragon can't get a 50% miss chance by waving around a halfling or a mouse as a shield.
Oh well, it is time for me to actually go and PLAY some D&D instead of posting to a messageboard about it :)
Sneak Attack - Rogues clearly need some way to be useful against undead and constructs. I think granting them a full sneak attack progression against everything for free in PRPG might be going a little too far though. To me that kind of cuts into the other classes like Fighter who enjoy having more "reliable" damage.
Sneak Attack is still "unreliable". You have to surprise, ambush, flank, or deceive the guy in order to get sneak attack. And generally, the rogue's attack bonus is lower than the fighter's. Fighter still has more reliable damage.
Plus, I prefer that there are no unnecessary complications, and I think this one is unnecessary (there already are spells and magic items that enable full-power crits and sneak attacks against several kinds of immune critters. Didn't spell the end of the world.)
CMB and Monks (esp Trip) - I hope that PRPG Monks get some kind of CMB bonus, perhaps something that scales with level. It seems kind of lame to get Improved Trip as a bonus feat but end up being bad at tripping people.
We don't know anything about the new monk yet. He might get full BAB.
Other than that, a CMB bonus would make sense: Make monks the best at funky stuff like sweeping people off their feet, taking their weapons out of their hands, throw them around and keep them in a headlock.
Grapple - I think grapple, problematic as it was, might have taken too harsh a beating from the nerf stick. As a fan of both mixed martial arts and alien tentacle monsters I'd be sorely disappointed if grappling isn't a viable option for PCs or monsters in PRPG.
Yeah, I think you really like monsters with "tentacles" "grappling" their victims, wink wink, nudge nudge if you know what I mean ;-P
Seriously, though: I don't know whether grapple is too weak now. Have to playtest this part.
I do know that I had grappling going on in games, and especially when really big critters were involved, and it usually went on like this:
DM: "He tries to grapple you. Make your grapple check."
Player: "I had a tw..."
DM: "Bwahahaha. Never mind, the critter didn't get a natural one, his bonus alone is more than you could ever roll, you're screwed. Want to break out? Just try to roll your natural 20 or try magic."
The Bwahahaha part was actually there. I was the DM. I like laughing at their misery. I rule.
1 - Does winning a grapple check let you inflict damage? This is the case in 3.5, but PRPG doesn't seem to say. A lot of people didn't realize that establishing a hold in 3.5 lets you do unarmed strike damage, so I think this needs to be clarified either way.
Grapple doesn't say anything about damage. I'd say there is none. It's to keep people down.
I guess, though, that monks might get an ability (or the bonus feat they will introduce that grants this ability) to make an unarmed attack as a free action against someone they have grappled. Sounds good to me.
2 - The grapple rules say "you must continue to make a check each round to maintain the hold". Does this mean that you have no choice but to make the check or just that the enemy will no longer be grappled if you don't make the check? I'd assume it is the latter, but assumptions and lack of clarity are part of what doomed 3e/3.5 grapple to being one of the least liked subsystems in the D&D.
They must do X to achieve Y. Not "must do X period". If they don't want Y, there's no need for X.
I agree that they can make it more clear, but the latter is the only logical choice.
2a - Assuming that you can choose not to make the check or that you somehow become unable to make the check what happens? Does the grapple end immediately?
You stop holding the guy down. He's no longer held down.
2b - What kind of action is the check to maintain the hold, another standard action? If so that's disappointing since it would prevent you from ever employing a "ground and pound" strategy like a MMA fighter (hold the enemy down and punch him in the head a lot)
That's true about the new grapple rules: You can't hold and hurt, since it's a standard action.
I repeat my idea for a feat (which will become a bonus feat for monks) that lets you hurt those you hold (and no, I'm not sniping at relationships)
3 - I assume the free grapple from Improved Grab doesn't require a standard action to use but happens as a free action. Does this end the creature's full attack? In other words, if a bear doing claw/claw/bite grapples after the first claw are the other two attacks lost? 3.5 never clarified this to my satisfaction.
I guess that will be clarified along with improved grab.
4 - Let's assume I grapple and get a "Held" result on the opponent. He can take pretty much whatever actions he wants except moving away. Does this include grappling me back, or would he have to break my grapple on him before he can try one on me?
Good point: How's the back & forth going to work? I'd say you can grapple right back, so you can build up your own bonus.
4a - Assuming that grappling back while held is a viable tactic, what if he grapples back in and scores a "Grappled" effect? Would this break my Hold, or would our grappling effects on each other be completely independent? I suppose that lacking a free hand (from the Grappled condition) would give me a -4 on my roll if I decided to grapple back the next round
I could go either way - you could get your full bonus since you two are already all over each other, or you could get -4 because the guy's already got a lock on you.
I say that it doesn't matter whether the hold is broken or not: The next round, he either tries to grapple again to keep the hold (and I'd say he'd still get his bonus), or he wouldn't, in which case the hold would be broken, anyway (but still, he would be held by his enemy, so he could use his action to break the hold.)