I'd say the point is, that with your arms full off opponent there is not much difference between the Grappler and the Grapplee, in respect to people surrounding PCs and NPCs
the Grappler is just as vounerable to attacks as the Grapplee.
The advantage given by the control he might have over the situation is compensated by being more exposed.
|
I suspect the problem the OP is pointing out is that the Pathfinder grappling rules, by requiring the action of "maintaining a grapple" every round, are clearly written from the perspective of an Attacker trying to grapple a Defender, while the Defender doesn't want to be grappled.
To the OP: despite the wording, I believe the intent will come down that Grappled is a mutual condition. But, given that, the "maintain a grapple" rules are nonsensical.
One possible fix: If both grapplers want to be Grappled, the maintenance CMB check succeeds automatically. If not, it must be made as per the rules, at the +5 bonus. (This represents a Defender who makes an active attempt to escape on his turn, but who may slip out if the Attacker isn't careful on his own turn.)
My fix would be simpler: Since doing something to the Defender in a grapple requires a check anyway, require the check only if trying to move, damage, or pin the Defender. There is no "maintaining a grapple" check. You're Grappled until you escape the Grapple, or until you allow the Defender to escape by declaring so when the Defender makes his attempt.
Even aside from this, the grapple rules have issues. Multiple grapplers? And no combat penalties for striking into a grapple? (One of the classic uses for grapples in films is using the hapless Defender as a shield.) And so on.
-- Jeff
My fix would be simpler: Since doing something to the Defender in a grapple requires a check anyway, require the check only if trying to move, damage, or pin the Defender. There is no "maintaining a grapple" check.
ever done any wrestling, or judo?
a "maintaining a grapple" check is bloddy well required even to just stand still and enjoy the sunshine, if the target doesn't like to be grappled.Grappling is a mutual condition, its just a question about who is in control.
This is an issue that definitely needs clarification, even without any changes to the intended working of Grapple.
Notice the wording on how Pin works:
Since there is NOTHING which distinguishes between grapple "controller" and "controlee" (besides Pin), then the original TARGET of a Grapple, then on their turn would seem to be able to PIN their opponent who INITIATED the Grapple, immediately in one round!
This wording is the closest the current text comes to distinguishing between "grappler" and "grapplee", but doesn't actually do so, besides not at all helping the "Defender counter-Pins in one round" problem I mentioned. (And the wording is so wierd, I don't even know if applies to someone who is attempting to Pin an opponent on the 2nd round after initiating a Grapple, or only on 'subsequent rounds' after MAINTAINING the Grapple (!?).
But I really think Grapple needs a major over-haul, introducing distinct "Controller" and "Controlled" conditions (pre-Pin), and allowing Full Attacks (probably still only one Grapple condition change/round
(Normal/Grappled (Controller)->Grapple (Controlled)->Pinned) so characters can at least use Grapple-compatabile weapons like daggers or natural weapons. As is, high-level Monsters with Improved Grab vs. high-level PCs with Imp. Grapple is absurd, and the penalties for weapons while being grappled are silly, since there's no way to Grapple AND use the rest of your iterative attacks.
"you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold"
should probably be reworded to "maintain control"
and if control is lost, there should be a chance for the initial target to reverse the grapple * (maybe when surpassing the break DC by a certain number)
* if the target is within one size category of the grappler:
a strong gnome might be able to grapple/control a weak human, but can only hold onto an ogre
Yes, well, this sort of thing really belongs in the Combat Chapter phase.
I won't be advocating for keeping the "Standard Action" stuff, I know.
I'll try and write-up a "complete" re-wording/re-work of Grapple by then. It's not that the fundamentals of what the current wording is trying to achieve are so bad... I think the Standard Action's intended purpose is just preventing shifting the Grapple Category more than once/round, which is better achieved by other means.
|
I think the system is pretty elegant, although like most of D&D it is fairly abstract.
It relies on a series of 'I want to do this' checks versus an 'I don't want to do this' static defense (always being the 15 + CMB total).
For example, when starting a grapple, a character who 'wants to grapple' rolls the die and adds his CMB, checking against the opponent's static 'I don't want you to do this' total.
When in a grapple, a check to maintain every round is not needed as it is handled in a different fashion. Now that both characters are in a grapple, there is no real 'controller'. Instead, if a character wants to escape, they must make a Grapple or Escape Artist 'I want to leave' check versus a 'Oh no you don't, stay here' static defense.
This is the same thing, in my mind, as making a 'controller' roll a check to keep the other in. Instead of making them roll that and then allowing the guy that wants out a roll, it's just a simple 'if you want out, make a roll'. Or 'if you want to damage him, make a roll'. Or 'if you want to pin him, make a roll'.
And yes, this means that once someone has started a grapple, the newly grappled character *could* attempt to pin the other guy immediately. They do have less chance of doing so then the guy that initiated the grapple though, represented by that +5 given to someone that just made a successful grapple check in the last round. That is the sole mechanic in place to kind of tell who is in 'control', although it is possible to be on equal footing in that respect (if both just made grapple checks to damage each other, for example).
I think the system is simple, and while abstract, it makes sense if you think outside of the box.
|
|
a "maintaining a grapple" check is bloddy well required even to just stand still and enjoy the sunshine, if the target doesn't like to be grappled.
It's not required if the rules don't say it's required. (Right now they do, which, as I pointed out, makes the grappling rules not quite work.)
The idea behind my suggested fix is that the grapple is "maintained" automatically, simply by virtue of the original successful grapple check. This would not be a big deal, thematically, because a grapple check is required regardless, if you want to move, damage, or pin the other character. If you just want to hold the other person, against his escape attempts or not, well fine, you're holding him (and vice-versa). If you want to do something else to him, make a new grapple check.
-- Jeff
|
|
Since there is NOTHING which distinguishes between grapple "controller" and "controlee" (besides Pin), then the original TARGET of a Grapple, then on their turn would seem to be able to PIN their opponent who INITIATED the Grapple, immediately in one round!
Is this a bug, though, or a feature? Personally, I don't have much of a problem with it.
-- Jeff
a "maintaining a grapple" check is bloddy well required even to just stand still and enjoy the sunshine, if the target doesn't like to be grappled.It's not required if the rules don't say it's required.
sorry, I missed the bit about the breaking free check.
so yes its is quite correct to assume that the grapplee is not actively resistingand to not require *another* grapple check to maintain the grapple (and control).
Well, obviously the current grappling needs to be rewritten once more since people do not understand how it works same as they didn't understand 3.5e grappling.
Personally I find 3.5e grappling to be more logical and simple.
If 3P grappling is not improved in my campaign I will be reverting to 3.5e grappling using CMB instead of grapple modifier.
|
|
I think the system is pretty elegant, although like most of D&D it is fairly abstract.I think the system you've described in your post isn't the system in the Pathfinder Beta.
-- Jeff
It is though (come on, I mentioned CMB a lot). What part of it was wrong? Or were you just alluding that you don't think the system is elegant or abstract?
In my opinion, as Pathfinder RPG is currently written, only the grapplee has the grappled condition. The person who starts it is not grappled, near as I can tell - but if they fail to maintain the hold, their grapplee escapes.
Beta, Grapple, p.150
I think the system is pretty elegant, although like most of D&D it is fairly abstract. It relies on a series of 'I want to do this' checks versus an 'I don't want to do this' static defense (always being the 15 + CMB total). For example, when starting a grapple, a character who 'wants to grapple' rolls the die and adds his CMB, checking against the opponent's static 'I don't want you to do this' total.
OK, Karui... Notice nobody's mentioned the CMB mechanism IN GENERAL. The problems people have here are not the CMB part (though I'm sure not everyone is 100% happy with it), but the specific sub-system of Grappling, which besides also using a CMB check, is completely unique to the other maneuvers. When I'm critiquing Grapple, I'm critiquing all the parts BESIDES the CMB.
And yes, this means that once someone has started a grapple, the newly grappled character *could* attempt to pin the other guy immediately. They do have less chance of doing so then the guy that initiated the grapple though, represented by that +5 given to someone that just made a successful grapple check in the last round. That is the sole mechanic in place to kind of tell who is in 'control', although it is possible to be on equal footing in that respect (if both just made grapple checks to damage each other, for example).
Right. And exactly why (after being Grappled by someone) would you try use a Grapple Check to (minorly) Damage the opponent,
instead of, you know, Pinning them in one Round (same DC)? Why not Full Attack with whatever you got (even Unarmed)?Maybe I'm queer, but I'd rather not use a mechanic that let a house-cat PIN me if it makes one lucky roll.
As Jeff pointed out, this may be intentional (insta-Pin by defender, which I'm theoretically OK with except for said house-cat).
...Though I rather think it's an ARTIFACT of an attempt to have different "Tiers" (Normal, Grappled, Pinned)
which are only shiftable one Tier/round, unfortunately (overly)relying on the Grapple=Standard Attack rule to achieve that.
Either way, I really question why a Fighting Style that takes 2 Feats to use effectively (Imp.UA, Imp.Grapple) would make it so NO SANE PERSON WOULD initiate one, unless they believe they completely outclass their opponent (if you want to avoid a heavily armed opponent's Full Attack, it's better to Disarm them and goad them to Grapple YOU - if they go for it). And this "elegant" system also beggars the question, "what if the grapple initiator FAILS the CMB check?" Aren't the combatants just as much "Grappled" as if he had won? Why should it be easier for the 2nd combatant to PIN the 1st combatant when the 1st combatant WINS the first round, compared to when he FAILS his first CMB check? This just does not feel "elegant" to me, at all.
Then there's the Grapple = Standard Action.
Because... Grapples SOMEHOW don't scale with Iterative Attacks (like every other Maneuver)
(making AoO's the only way to gain multiple Grapples for Humanoids, which seems a bizarre distortion of normal Combat)
Never mind that Grapple Monsters (w/ Imp. Grab) don't need to follow this restriction, because their regular Full Attacks (also doing damage) also each have the chance to Grapple their opponent. (And they can also Pin the opponent in one round this way).
Never mind that there are very specific restrictions on Weapon Size/Type that you can use while Grappled, and CMB penalties for not having both hands free, but ON TOP OF THOSE, Attempting to Grapple (Standard Action to either Escape or Pin) NEEDS to preclude use of Iterative Attacks with those Small Weapons (shivs, etc) BECAUSE... ????
I think the system is simple, and while abstract, it makes sense if you think outside of the box.
Is it such a terrible design goal, that the rules "make sense" when you read them directly?
I might also want the Grappled & Pinned conditions/modifiers defined IN the Grapple section, like 2WF, instead of THE GLOSSARY.
|
besides not at all helping the "Defender counter-Pins in one round" problem I mentioned.
I agree working needs to be cleaned up a lot to make things more clear. However, I do not see a problem with the Defender counter-pinning in one round as a problem. Ever watch wrestling (the real stuff not what is on TV) or martial arts of any kind? A guy can easily go in for a pin and in a second or less find himself pinned. I would say that defender counter-pinning should stay in for some semblance of realism in combat. Not that I feel any game mechanics can replicate real combat... it juts retains the "feel" of reality to me.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Ever watch wrestling (the real stuff not what is on TV) or martial arts of any kind? A guy can easily go in for a pin and in a second or less find himself pinned. I would say that defender counter-pinning should stay in for some semblance of realism in combat.
Sure, Krome, but that's a case of someone attempting a maneuver and failing. With the Pathfinder rules as written, let's say you try to grapple with me. If you succeed, the on my turn, we're both grappled, and I can pin you. (Albeit, you have a +5 to our opposed rolls.) That's a case of you doing everything right, succeding in your initial grapple, and then getting stuck.
Oh, and another thing:
If I try to pin you, but fail, then neither of us is grappled any more.
Well, as I'm proposing ALLOWING Full Attacks with Grapples,
that "lightening quick" Pin is still within the realm of possibility. I'm not exactly sure why it should be possible for the Defender to do that, but mechanically impossible for the Initiator (except for Imp. Grab Monsters)
- especially since both combatants need 2 Feats to be even remotely competent Grapplers.
(+if the Initiator moved >5' before Grappling, the Defender still has net advantage if they have Multi/Iterative Attack)
...But like i said, I don't see the necessity for a kitten to always have a 5%+ chance of immediately Pinning me after I grab it.
The rationale I see for Grapple not working w/ Full Attack is as a way to prevent Pinning your foe on the first round of Grapple,
and my point is really just there's other ways to achieve that end (if it's desired) that don't needlessly gimp Grapple.
(hopefully enabling Full Attack Grapples: multiple MOVE usages if not Grapple(Control) & Pinned, or Grapple +Punch/Shiv)
...Though I rather think it's an ARTIFACT of an attempt to have different "Tiers" (Normal, Grappled, Pinned)
I actually like the Ttiers, but with high enough BAB (10/5) it should be possible to go through them in one round:
one regular attack from high enough BAB for each step..
I don't like the counter pin from being pinned, unless it goes through the tier
pinned -> unpinned/grappled -> grappling -> pinning
and require a BAB of 15/10/5 and one check for each ->
.
I've got the green belt in JuJitsu btw.
I would't call myself an "authority"** for the sake of designing the Grappling rules, but I do know what it feels like to try to grapple, pin or get away.
**as in argumentum ad verecundium
Another problem is the definition of the "grappled" condition. An opponent may successfully grapple me (get some kind of hold) but in the process leave my sword arm free. I'm not really "grappled" because I can attack with full effectiveness with my weapon, especially against the grappler.
Another problem is the definition of the "grappled" condition. An opponent may successfully grapple me (get some kind of hold) but in the process leave my sword arm free. I'm not really "grappled" because I can attack with full effectiveness with my weapon, especially against the grappler.
do you really want a Rule Booklet covering all the possibilities of unarmed combat?
do you really want a Rule Booklet covering all the possibilities of unarmed combat?
Ah, you've squarely struck the nail upon which hangs the heart of the problem of the Feat system.
You're either "Grappled" or not grappled.
Whether or not you have 2 hands free doesn't matter, though if you're "Grappled" you can't attack w/ 2H Weapons.
The "Grappled" condition is explictly FOR situations where your "sword arm" is able to attack, just with a -2 penalty.
"Pinned" is the condition where you cannot make normal attacks.
Sure, you can say that there should be more granularity, like a "Grabbed" condition that doesn't penalize your non-Grapple attacks.
But the rules aren't TRYING to give that level of granularity, and it seems to succeed at what it aims for.
You're either "Grappled" (or Pinned) or not. No in betweens.
I don't really see a problem with the Grappled CONDITION, and I'm not really sure what Feats have to do with the condition itself.
There's some Feats which increase your effectiveness at RESOLVING GRAPPLES, but that's distinct from the condition, since the penalties from "Grappled" don't apply to Grappling itself, but only to outside combatants/ non-Grapple attacks & spell-casting.
(now the rules for RESOLVING Grapples, like non-compatability with Full Attack...)
|
|
I'm not sure if this is actually on-point to the thread, but something occurred to me about CMB as I reread:
Many folks think the CMB DC (15 + opponent's CMB) is too high. Given that iterative attacks give multiple attempts to perform (most of) the maneuvers without an iterative penalty, the current DC is definitely appropriate. (I have previously argued that the effects of combat maneuvers are powerful enough to justify the DC, but although I think it's a valid argument, it's not convincingly strong.)
Accordingly, maybe this would work:
(1) Make all combat maneuvers standard actions to use.
(2) Drop the DC to 10 + CMB.
(3) Give a small bonus on CMB for each iterative attack the character has. (I.e., +1 or so to CMB at +6, +11, and +16 BAB.)
Some folks might argue that CMB already incorporates BAB, so that part of the solution is double-dipping, which is true, but the current system also double-dips, by giving multiple attempts at the same DC, which is much more powerful. In any event, the third item is the least important, and though I think it's worth adding, I could live without it.
The things I like about this suggested change are:
(1) It standardizes combat maneuvers to all be standard actions.
(2) It reduces multiple rolls from iterative attacks.
(3) It sets a DC for success that encourages the maneuvers.
-- Jeff
So far the Grapple rules have sufficed for me. I do like the chart that a previous thread showed that a DC of 12 + Defender's CMB would be closer to D&D 3.5.
The most ANNOYING thing I have found with the grappling rules are:
#1 The -20 to your roll if you want to grapple the defender but not be grappled yourself, ala tentacled monsters. This is really high, I'd go for -15, but -10 seems more correct to me, as long as the creature has at least a 10ft reach.
#2 If you enter a grapple with an opponent and do damage, on the opponent's next turn he can try to pin you. I think this is a little too much. I think it might be more appropriate to designate who has the advantage in a grapple. So it would go like this:
Attacker/Grappler - Touch attack roll, Start grapple roll (if successful, the attacker gains advantage)
Defender - Grapple roll to gain advantage, if he/she does, he can then make another check to pin, move the opponent, etc
Basically, only allow that the person with the advantage can do something to the other (pin, move, do damage), and if you don't have the advantage, you can try to gain advantage and do something, or just escape the grapple.
You're either "Grappled" or not grappled.
Whether or not you have 2 hands free doesn't matter, though if you're "Grappled" you can't attack w/ 2H Weapons.The "Grappled" condition is explictly FOR situations where your "sword arm" is able to attack, just with a -2 penalty.
"Pinned" is the condition where you cannot make normal attacks.
If my sword arm is free, and you are trying to grapple me, I'd have a +2 to hit you. You are right there! How can I miss?
I guarantee you, if you try to grapple me when I have a 2H weapon, I can use it 2H'ed to attack you. If you make an unarmed attempt to disarm me, that is another matter (but it also isn't grappling me).
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.
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.
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.
I think we are mistaking something.
Page 150 and 151:
"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."
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':
"As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering
his combat options. (...) If successful, both you and the target gain the grappled condition (see the Glossary chapter)."
"Grappled: A grappled creature is being restrained by another creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to their Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character that attempts to cast a spell must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + the spell’s level) or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity."
...and that's all. BOTH of them cannot move, etc., BUT the creature that STARTED the grapple (and have the upper side) CAN move, damage, or pin the opponent; the other one, can only break free.
At least, this is how I think the rule works.
...Plus, I admit, the art on page 148, although purely for fancy, suggested me to look at the rules in this way... I mean, how do you expect the poor fighter to pin that snake-man FROM THAT position !?!...
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?
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...
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You grapple your foe against a CMB of 15 + his BaB + his STR mod (or Dex, if he has Agile Maneuvers) + his special size modifier. Now, the initiative is on your foe. Since YOU have grappled him, he is only in Case B of my notes above ("If you are grappled, you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action"), so he basically can only attempt to escape against a CMB of 15+ your BaB + your STR mod + your special size modifier (well, he can still attack you with a light or one-handed weapon with a -2 to hit, but we are strictly speaking of grapple moves). You do not gain the +5 bonus on your value, since it's a bonus you have on your check, not on your value. If he succeeds, he is free. If he does not, on your turn you can either a) release him, b) move him (CMB check, WITH the +5), c) damage him (see b), or d) pin him (see b and c).
The 'grappled' condition is merely a condition that both the contendents gain, and has a fixed list of effects. Being grappled and having the grappled condition are, game-view, two different things (much like being flat-footed and losing your Dex bonus; being flat-footed means that you - among other things - lose your Dex bonus against enemy attacks, but merely losing your Dex bonus does not mean that you are flat-footed - which forbids you from making Attacks of Opportunity).
The paragraphs I posted above gives a difference that would not have meaning, otherwise: why specify "Once you are grappling an opponent..." (giving a list of the things you can do) and then begin a new paragraph saying "If you are grappled you can attempt to break the grapple" like it's a different thing? Maybe because IT IS a different thing...
Again, this is by no means a 100% sure thing; but I think that, looking in this way, things are more clear (with the 'grappled' condition common to both the grappler and the grapplee being the misleading factor)...
Plus, in this way, it actually works and makes sense (I catch you to stop you, I succeed, and then I am thrown to the pavement ? Useful...)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I want to say thanks to William for hashing this all out; written as you presented I think is an accurate account of how is should work based on the intent of the rules.
There are a couple of points of contention.....
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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.
Robert
|
|
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 think this is a great idea.
What I would do is.....
"If you are being grappled (the grapplee), you may take a standard action to attempt to break free with a DC 15 + CMB check. If you beat the DC by 10 or more, you can choose to reverse the grapple instead of breaking free. By reversing the grapple, you become the attacker, and your opponent becomes the defender."
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.
Robert