I like the new simple grappled condition. That's all we've ever needed. One suggestion - please retain the rule where the grappler (and victim) loses their DEX bonus to AC. This allows them to be subject to sneak attacks.
One strategy my groups use to good effect when grappling happens is to have the rouges get grappled just so they can sneak attack the foe to death.
Nothing surprises a great tentacled monstrosity more than grappling the gnome rouge and then getting shived for 6d6 damage from her dagger.
|
One strategy my groups use to good effect when grappling happens is to have the rouges get grappled just so they can sneak attack the foe to death.
What you're suggesting doesn't work in 3.5. Grappling Combatants only lose their Dex bonus to those outside the grapple. They retain their Dex bonus against those they are grappling with.
That being said, the party I'm DMing at the moment has the following standing strategy. Monk grapples someone. Everyone else surrounds and sneak attacks the hell out of it.
Director of Games
|
As well, I think we need a clarification on whether or not firing a ranged attack into a grapple still has a chance of hitting a random person. It would be nice to know (since that very thing killed two PCs in my last epic dungeon-crawl campaign).
Jeremy Puckett
It does not currently. Do you think it needs to? I personally have always felt like this was a poor rule.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
Director of Games
|
One strategy my groups use to good effect when grappling happens is to have the rouges get grappled just so they can sneak attack the foe to death.
What you're suggesting doesn't work in 3.5. Grappling Combatants only lose their Dex bonus to those outside the grapple. They retain their Dex bonus against those they are grappling with.
That being said, the party I'm DMing at the moment has the following standing strategy. Monk grapples someone. Everyone else surrounds and sneak attacks the hell out of it.
TK342 (a relative of TK421 perhaps, and why aren't you at your post) is correct here. The loss of Dex will not be returning to the grapple rules any time soon I think. It made grapple a bit too good. As for the monk and rogue grapple/sneak attack combo, you can still accomplish this with flanking pretty easily.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
It does not currently. Do you think it needs to? I personally have always felt like this was a poor rule.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
No! No! That's okay! XD
I was mostly asking because one of my players was curious to know for our upcoming playtest. I'm actually happy with the change; keeping your Dexterity when grappled and not having to worry about your buddies filling your hide with arrows when you grab your enemy simplifies things immensely, as well as pleasing me on a personal level.
And thanks a lot for the reply!
Jeremy Puckett
For the sake of realism, I think ranged attacks into a grapple should have a chance of striking allys. But my group feels ranged attacks into a melee should have a similar chance.
Of course, I also modify the chance to hit based on size. So grappling a large creature is actually safer regarding ranged. Only a 20% chance to be hit instead of 50%. Getting mauled by a huge grappler? Yell for allies to shoot it, its only a 10% chance they'll hit you.
I've also considered making the "firing into melee" penalty be optional, but not taking it then prompts the "chance to hit ally". In some groups, this could cause tension between players, but there are other times when I see the whole group wishing the ranger could ignore the -4, even if it meant the fighter took an arrow in the back, because Favored Enemy: Giants would be really nice against the ogre, who does a lot more damage to the fighter each round than a potential ranger arrow.
|
|
It does not currently. Do you think it needs to? I personally have always felt like this was a poor rule.
It's been a confusing rule, to be sure. A rogue shoots into a melee, and accidentally sneak attacks his ally? That's wierd.
All I would do is call out the fact that shooting into a grapple grants the person you are shooting cover and since you are shooting into a melee, it's a -4 to hit.
That should be enough.
|
Director of Games
|
Looks like a strong level one fighter, str=18, type would have a hard time grappling a weak level one wizard, str=8. I like using this as a test case. Did I miss something?
Frank Pont
Needing to roll a 9+ is hard? It seems to me that this is roughly where the roll should be.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
I still think the Dc for a CMB being set at base 15 is high. I understand that his was to make the maneuver a little harder to pull off, but this is heroic fantasy. We playtested it at a base of 10 and found this to not be too bad. And monsters with the Improved Grab ability were effective once again.
|
|
After a session today, we discovered another example of why the DC for CMB should be lowered to 10 + Target's CMB. The Monk PC attempted a one-handed grab with Improved Grapple and found it next to impossible to do, since a one-handed grab takes a -4 penalty. That makes the base DC for a one-handed grapple a 19! Before CMB is even figured in!
And just out of curiosity, is the text on breaking a grapple a hold over from previous editions? Since there is no opposed role, how would a target actively prevent ("break") a grapple attempt. The DC is static. Does Escape Artist come into play? Did I miss something?
After a session today, we discovered another example of why the DC for CMB should be lowered to 10 + Target's CMB. The Monk PC attempted a one-handed grab with Improved Grapple and found it next to impossible to do, since a one-handed grab takes a -4 penalty. That makes the base DC for a one-handed grapple a 19! Before CMB is even figured in!
And just out of curiosity, is the text on breaking a grapple a hold over from previous editions? Since there is no opposed role, how would a target actively prevent ("break") a grapple attempt. The DC is static. Does Escape Artist come into play? Did I miss something?
I see breaking and preventing as two different things. Preventing or defending yourself against the grapple is passive, and is represented by your CMB adding to the DC of the initiator's check. Breaking is spending a standard action on your own turn in order to escape the grapple. The text specifies this: "If you are grappled..." meaning you have the grappled condition because someone succeeded on a grapple check against you, "you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action..."
In the paragraph above the one I quoted, the +5 circumstance bonus is awarded subsequent rounds, and the mention of the opponent breaking the grapple is alluding to the attempt on their round.
One strategy my groups use to good effect when grappling happens is to have the rouges get grappled just so they can sneak attack the foe to death.
What you're suggesting doesn't work in 3.5. Grappling Combatants only lose their Dex bonus to those outside the grapple. They retain their Dex bonus against those they are grappling with.
That being said, the party I'm DMing at the moment has the following standing strategy. Monk grapples someone. Everyone else surrounds and sneak attacks the hell out of it.
TK342 (a relative of TK421 perhaps, and why aren't you at your post) is correct here. The loss of Dex will not be returning to the grapple rules any time soon I think. It made grapple a bit too good. As for the monk and rogue grapple/sneak attack combo, you can still accomplish this with flanking pretty easily.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I thought the same thing myself, Jason. A rogue/grappler combo still works very well, as the grappler prevents the opponent from moving. This makes it much easier for the rogue to move into a flank, using the grappler to flank the grapplee, and then stay there in order to gain iterative sneak attacks. And all without the kludgy "move into the grappler's square" from 3.5.
I think you hit close to the perfect combination of simplicity and power with the latest version. I haven't had a chance to playtest yet, but just doing the math in my head, I do think the base DC of 15 may be a bit too high. Of course, lowering it too much, and the +5 bonus on subsequent rounds becomes too powerful. It's definitely something I hope to playtest when I start DMing CotCT for my group as our playtest campaign.
|
|
Breaking is spending a standard action on your own turn in order to escape the grapple. The text specifies this: "If you are grappled..." meaning you have the grappled condition because someone succeeded on a grapple check against you, "you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action..."
Okay. It's a standard action. Does the PC have the make a combat maneuver to break the grapple? What is the DC? Exactly what mechanic is used? Or is that the grappled PC gives up his "standard action" for one round and is now not grappled?
As it reads, it seems that grappling is very hard, but breaking a grapple takes nothing more than giving up a standard action. That can't be right.
Breaking is spending a standard action on your own turn in order to escape the grapple. The text specifies this: "If you are grappled..." meaning you have the grappled condition because someone succeeded on a grapple check against you, "you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action..."Okay. It's a standard action. Does the PC have the make a combat maneuver to break the grapple? What is the DC? Exactly what mechanic is used? Or is that the grappled PC gives up his "standard action" for one round and is now not grappled?
As it reads, it seems that grappling is very hard, but breaking a grapple takes nothing more than giving up a standard action. That can't be right.
I guess I should have quoted the whole thing:
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 same mechanic would be used to escape a pin. As the description of the Pinned Condition says, a pin is just a more severe type of grappled condition:
Pinned
A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few
actions. A pinned creature cannot move and is f lat-footed.
A pinned character also takes an additional –4 penalty to
his armor class. A pinned creature is limited in the actions
that it can take. A pinned creature can always attempt to
free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or
Escape Artist check. A pinned creature can take verbal and
mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a
somatic or material component. A pinned creature that
attempts to cast a spell must make a Spellcraft check (DC
15 + the spell’s level) or lose the spell. Pinned is a more
severe version of grappled.
|
Looks like a strong level one fighter, str=18, type would have a hard time grappling a weak level one wizard, str=8. I like using this as a test case. Did I miss something?
Frank Pont
Needing to roll a 9+ is hard? It seems to me that this is roughly where the roll should be.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I don't have a problem with engaging the grapple, but that same Wizard is going to be slithering out of that grapple, using Escape Artist, on a 15+. Okay, fine, fine; difficult but not impossible is appropriate.
But if a MONK currently tries to grapple someone, they're much less likely to have an 18 strength since they have Dex and Wis to worry about. Let's say they have a 12 Strength. Now, the Escape Artisting Wizard only needs to roll an 11 to escape? The unarmed combat specialist can't hold on to the archetypal non-combatant roughly half the time? Oh, well, the Monk took Improved Grapple! That makes sense, so what sort of bonus does this give to maintaining that grapple?
...
None. Uh, huh.
Can we see either Improved Grapple provide a bonus to maintaining a grapple, or rule that Escape Artist can't be used untrained to break a grapple, or give the monk a better BAB? It just doesn't make sense to me that a monk, who should be using Combat Maneuvers all over the place, and has a reason to grapple over hitting you with his enormous sword, is worse at grappling than a fighter.
The monk is tricky... I seriously hope that the monk gets a special bonus to CMB.
HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT HINT CMBBONUSTOMONKSPLEASE HINT
Anyway...barring that, I think that grappling probably should be difficult. As a rather experienced grappler, many of the things you could grapple in D&D are already well outside the bounds of reality (not that I want to argue on that slippery slope).
Grappling something with a weapon or natural weapons is just as difficult. The fact you can do it without drawing an attack (with the feat)is already fairly impressive. The way you would have to grapple something armed with a weapon that can do lethal damage and required little windup to kill (like a dagger) would mean you would have to grapple completely differently...it would be considerably harder than grappling under normal circumstances.
But enough of my grappling obsession that nobody cares about...did I mention the monk should get a bonus to CMB?