
![]() |

I have just read the Pathfinder RPG Grappling rules and I actually find them in IMHO as complicated as the 3.5 rules (not that I find thge 3.5 rules overly complicated). Does anyone else think this?
For example:
Tracking who is winning
In PF you now have to keep track of who is winning a grapple - the winner gets to stop grappling as a free action and if the loser failed to break free they get an extra +5 bonus next time.
In 3.5 once you intiated a grapple you were both considered grappling - no need to track a winner or loser.
Extra Modifiers to remember
If your target is stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll to perform a combat maneuver against it (CMs in general in fact).
Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll. 3.5 only worried about this if you actually tried to attack with a weapon whilst grappling, if you're simply grappling it didn't matter.
Tracking when Dex Bonus to AC is lost
Now it seems that a grappler only loses his Dexterity bonus to AC when he has pinned an opponent rather than when simply grappling.
In 3.5 you only had to know if a person was grappling to know that they lost their Dex bonus to AC against you (assuming you weren't part of the grapple). So now you have to keep track of whether they are pinning or not (a condition more likely to change than simply whether they are grappling or not).
Recalculating AC and CMD (and possibly CMB)
Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. That isn't a penalty on Dexterity checks, but a penalty to Dexterity, which means when grappling both characters' AC and CMD is reduced by 2. This also means if a character has the Agile Maneuvers feat his CMB will also be reduced by 2.
Losing Grappler can make iterative attacks with a weapon!
A grappler who is winning can only use a weapon against his opponent by making a Grapple check (and if a weapon is in hand accept the -4 penalty for not having two hands free) and opting for the Damage option. Now as they are winning they will gain the +5 bonus, so overall they are using CMB +1 to attack - but its a Standard action and so no iterative attacks unless they wish to end the grapple (end the grappple and make a normal iterative attack).
However, a losing grappler can "Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you". So an attack using a light weapon would actually be an attack roll, not a CMB roll and as such would not incur the -4 penalty. Also if they have iterative attacks, then presumably they could use a Full Round Action and make multiple attacks.
So a Fighter Level 6 winning a grapple with a Fighter Level 6 could take a Standard Action to maintain the grapple and make a single CMB +1 attack roll against the opponent. Whilst the Fighter 6 who is losing could take a Full Round Action and make two attacks at (BAB + Str) and (BAB+Str-5) - equivalent to CMB and CMB-5.
I can understand some changes - they make things simpler etc, but other things seem to have been added in which IMHO seem to add extra complication.
As it is I am not sure which I consider simpler and as I am more familiar with the 3.5 version I prefer that at present.

![]() |

That was why I couldnt stay on the PFRPG wagon. For everything they did to make it simpler or more dynamic they added something clunky so that overall it felt no better. Just different.
Speaking as somebody who has used CMD and who has used the original grappling rules, I can say that in my opinion using the Pathfinder rules in reality is about 10 times easier than the original 3.5 rules.
Every time we used to grapple, sunder, trip, overrun, or bull rush somebody would have to grab the book and review the materials again from scratch. They were so non-intuitive to use nobody could remember them. We had monks who bookmarked the page to try to remember what to do because even though they were doing grapples ever session, they never got it. On the other hand, after 3-4 grapples during beta testing my players (even those who NEVER understood grapple rules) got it and the book never came out during a grapple attempt. That was done while converting a 3.5 module on the fly too.
It may read as clunkier, but in actual gameplay, in my experience, the difference is night and day.

roguerouge |

I've a few responses...
Tracking who is winning
In PF you now have to keep track of who is winning a grapple - the winner gets to stop grappling as a free action and if the loser failed to break free they get an extra +5 bonus next time.
YOU don't have to keep track of it. The players do it for you. Players are usually very aware of who's winning a grapple, as they usually want to get out of them and can't. They'll track that for you.
Extra Modifiers to remember
If your target is stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll to perform a combat maneuver against it (CMs in general in fact).Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll. 3.5 only worried about this if you actually tried to attack with a weapon whilst grappling, if you're simply grappling it didn't matter.
Intuitive. Remember the +/- 4 is a pain, but there should be a penalty for grappling in this manner. And +4 is not that hard--it's the circumstance bonus I use all the time for circumstances that are exceptionally favorable, more than the typical +2.
And if a target is stunned? The vast majority of the time, the PCs are slitting its throat.
Tracking when Dex Bonus to AC is lost
Now it seems that a grappler only loses his Dexterity bonus to AC when he has pinned an opponent rather than when simply grappling.
In 3.5 you only had to know if a person was grappling to know that they lost their Dex bonus to AC against you (assuming you weren't part of the grapple). So now you have to keep track of whether they are pinning or not (a condition more likely to change than simply whether they are grappling or not).
Dude. The players will know if their PC is pinned or not. And, again, it's more intuitive than the idea that in any form of wrestling you lose your Dex bonus.
Recalculating AC and CMD (and possibly CMB)
Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. That isn't a penalty on Dexterity checks, but a penalty to Dexterity, which means when grappling both characters' AC and CMD is reduced by 2. This also means if a character has the Agile Maneuvers feat his CMB will also be reduced by 2.
This is legitimately a pain in the ass.
Losing Grappler can make iterative attacks with a weapon!
A grappler who is winning can only use a weapon against his opponent by making a Grapple check (and if a weapon is in hand accept the -4 penalty for...
This also seems bizarre. I agree with you here as well.

![]() |

Losing Grappler can make iterative attacks with a weapon!
A grappler who is winning can only use a weapon against his opponent by making a Grapple check (and if a weapon is in hand accept the -4 penalty for...
Heh, I started an in depth look at the CMD rules to write a supplemental CMB article to sell, and caught that and lost all faith in the design intent for grapple. It's crazy that the grappled can not only make a full attack at you for only -2 to attack, but could actually make a full attack against someone outside of the grapple in their threatened area. That's asinine, I can garuntee in real life that if you are in control of a grapple that the person you are grappling wouldn't be able to strike at some random person 5 ft off. If they could you aren't in control of a grapple. Now granted it has to be a light one handed weapon, which means if you see someone with a short sword or dagger, just don't grapple them. But it really was a silly portion of the rules that should have been fixed, especially since it was pointed out as crazy in the BETA.
Oh well, my houserule is that to cast a spell in a grapple you have to make a concentration check and can only cast spells with a standard action casting time. Also you have to win a grapple check to attack. But if you're grappling you don't threaten any squares so you can only attack the guy grappling you.

![]() |

DigitalMage wrote:Tracking who is winningYOU don't have to keep track of it. The players do it for you. Players are usually very aware of who's winning a grapple, as they usually want to get out of them and can't. They'll track that for you.
By "you" I meant players of the PF RPG, not necessarily the GM, and whilst I can agree with you somewhat I can see situations where a someone may forget that while their character maintained a grapple on their action, the opponent reversed the grapple (rather than breaking free) on their action.
Actually looking at the rules again it says "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" so even if the grappler reverses the grapple technically you get to keep the +5 bonus even if the opponent reverses the grapple!
It seems ambiguous (at least from the PRD) as to whether reversing the grapple then gives the original target a +5 bonus as well, or just the ability to freely release the grapple without making a combat maneuver check.
Strictly by RAW only the initiator of a grapple ever gets the +5 bonus, and retains it unless the opponent actually breaks the grapple, even if that opponent reverses the grapple or even pins the initiator!
Extra Modifiers to remember
Intuitive. Remember the +/- 4 is a pain, but there should be a penalty for grappling in this manner. And +4 is not that hard
But you agree that this is an extra modifier introduced by PF (or rather an existing modifier that has to be applied in more situations)? It may be more realistic but does seem to be an extra complication.
Tracking when Dex Bonus to AC is lost
Dude. The players will know if their PC is pinned or not. And, again, it's more intuitive than the idea that in any form of wrestling you lose your Dex bonus.
I was actually thinking about a player moving up to attack a foe another player is grappling and having to ask that player (or the DM) as to whether the foe is pinning the other PC or merely grappling them.
Yes, people will likely remember it and be able to answer, but it may be an extra question to ask. In 3.5 I know that if I am striking a grappling opponent they lose their Dex bonus no questions asked.
Also I don't necessarily agree that it is more intuitive than "the idea that in any form of wrestling you lose your Dex bonus". If someone is grappling, they aren't going to be able to dodge out of the way as easily as if no one was grabbing them.
I am not saying that the PF RPG grapple rules are wrong or anything, but I just don't see how they are any simpler (overall) than the 3.5 rules.

![]() |

Also I don't necessarily agree that it is more intuitive than "the idea that in any form of wrestling you lose your Dex bonus". If someone is grappling, they aren't going to be able to dodge out of the way as easily as if no one was grabbing them.
Ignore this, the reduction to Dexterity actually covers this. I forgot this, still having two steps to losing dex bonus to AC (one for losing -4 Dexterity, and thus -2 bonus, and then a second step to lose any remaining dex bonus when pinning someone).

![]() |

So a Fighter Level 6 winning a grapple with a Fighter Level 6 could take a Standard Action to maintain the grapple and make a single CMB +1 attack roll against the opponent. Whilst the Fighter 6 who is losing could take a Full Round Action and make two attacks at (BAB + Str) and (BAB+Str-5) - equivalent to CMB and CMB-5.
Actually the iterative attacks would be at (BAB + Str -2 ) and (BAB+Str-7) because the grappled condition imposes an additional -2 to attacks that don't involve making or breaking a grapple. Another extra modifier PF RPG introduces!

yukarjama |

Quote from PRD:
Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you.
I think you can only make "one" attack when you're grappling. Also, casting a spell does require concernation check(10+ grappler's CMB+ spell level).

![]() |

Quote from PRD:
Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you.I think you can only make "one" attack when you're grappling. Also, casting a spell does require concernation check(10+ grappler's CMB+ spell level).
okay well since the concentration check is already there and assuming you're right about only making a single attack (which could have been spelled out better to avoid confusion) that leaves me happier with grapple, and the only houserule is that when grappling you don't threaten any squares. If someone can prove that grappling already does that, then I'll reform my position and say that I actually love the new grappling ruls.

![]() |

Quote from PRD:
Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you.I think you can only make "one" attack when you're grappling. Also, casting a spell does require concernation check(10+ grappler's CMB+ spell level).
Actually, I don't believe it is clear if that was the intention. It says "you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform" a full round of iterative attacks should count for that criteria.

![]() |

lastknightleft wrote:Where did you see that rule, I believe you, I just didn't find it.Its in the magic section. Here is a link to the relevant PRD page: Magic
In the PRD at least it is also under the Grappled condition:
"A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell."It also states "Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity." but doesn't actually say that they can't attack people they aren't grappling with.

Thurgon |

Well it beats 1st ed grappling rules...still my gang of guys wont go near grappling we lived too long playing 1st ed to ever touch that....
Acutally I have looked at both sets of rules and can't for the life of me explain the logic or sense behind how either work. Or martial artist and ranger (airborne not character class) hate any grapple rules that don't make the grappler immidately destroy the grapplee. It's a very tough part of D&D combat to make rules for and neither 3.5 nor pathfinder's are prefect, though they both work so of when needed.

![]() |

Scarymike wrote:lastknightleft wrote:Where did you see that rule, I believe you, I just didn't find it.Its in the magic section. Here is a link to the relevant PRD page: MagicIn the PRD at least it is also under the Grappled condition:
"A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell."It also states "Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity." but doesn't actually say that they can't attack people they aren't grappling with.
Okay well, aparently the PRD is worded differently than the book, because all I've been going by is the book. until today I didn't even have a link to the PRD, is that official and paizo produced?

![]() |

This is a good discussion. It sounds like Lastknightleft has received some clarification, and feels much better about Pathfinder RPG grapple, but now has me intrigued, and I am also interested in these questions.....? It does not seem that iterative attacks would qualify, but I could also see if one arm does the trick -maybe so? what about 1 Leg, as in, Kick with a weapon (Monk)?
Overall, Pathfinder CMB/CMD is a topic that I watched evolve nicely since Alpha 1, 2, 3 and Beta 1. I like the way the "functions" of Combat maneuvers handle a whole suite of maneuvers. And, in game play, I find this has improved play over v.3.5 greatly, imo.
Still - I seek to become crystal clear on grapple, once and for all in my 27 years of game play. lol! So while I am very much a big fan of Pathfinder RPG - I do appreciate this thread's question, and the details that it includes. Thanks.

Scarymike |
until today I didn't even have a link to the PRD, is that official and paizo produced?
Its official and released directly by Paizo (its even on their website).
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/index.html
Here is a blog post where they talk about it: http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lai3
"Next up, if you need to quickly reference the Pathfinder RPG online, there is no better resource than the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (or PRD for short). The PRD contains all of the rules from the game, organized just like the Core Rulebook, making them easy to find. If you are playing your game in reach of a computer, I might recommend a bookmark or three."

![]() |

Grappling seems a lot simpler to me in PFRPG. I haven’t really had the chance to read everything (big book!) but –
Effects – all involved get grappled status – so print the effect on a card and hand it to all involved, no remembering just a quick check on the card (-4 DEX which means -2 on all DEX skills and effects, -2 on attack related rolls, concentration check to cast).
As for the other issues the rules make the distincyion between grappler and grapplee.
Grappler – succeeds at the CM roll as a standard action. Gets +5 on further checks. If he succeeds at another check – pin, move or attack (with up to a light weapon). Biggest benefits being retaining the +5 and gaining the ability to pin and move (control the grapplee.
Grapplee - succeed at a CM check (standard action) to escape. If you don’t want to escape then you can become the grappler (for the +5 bonus to further CM rolls). If you don’t want to make the CM roll you can cast a spell or make AN attack (so ONE attack) with a light weapon – thus giving up the +5 bonus to your opponent (who is more likely to pin you). You don’t have the option of making a full attack since you are grappled.
The worst I see arising is a series of rolls to trade the +5 bonus – player rolls and is able to get on his next action , but before that arrives the NPC rolls and succeeds possibly getting the +5, so the player rolls and succeeds etc… The tactical choice is whether to give up the +5 – ensuring you could be pinned by an opponent (a far worse state) in return for your ability to make that one extra attack!
Sorry about the long post

hogarth |

Grappled - succeed at a CM check (standard action) to escape. If you don’t want to escape then you can become the grappler (for a +5 bonus to further CM rolls).
As an aside, that's not how I read the grappling rules. I think that there's a difference in PFRPG between being the "grappler" and being the "grapplee". Just because A is grappling B, it doesn't mean that B is grappling A (although that used to be true in 3.5).

![]() |

Seal Jason wrote:Grappled - succeed at a CM check (standard action) to escape. If you don’t want to escape then you can become the grappler (for a +5 bonus to further CM rolls).As an aside, that's not how I read the grappling rules. I think that there's a difference in PFRPG between being the "grappler" and being the "grapplee". Just because A is grappling B, it doesn't mean that B is grappling A (although that used to be true in 3.5).
Good point and sorry about that I meant grapplee in my post (so i've changed it accordingly - i hope it makes more sense now)

Loopy |

This does seem a bit confusing. We fought a creature which used grapple last night and we read the following...
"Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you."
...and decided the "make an attack" was excluding multiple attacks even though the previous sentence is inclusive (with the language "any").
We would greatly appreciate a clarification as well. Thanks!
I'm not sure if somebody addressed it already,
but the DEX penalty does NOT apply vs. your Grapple partner
(CMB or CMD or Melee Attacks or Touch AC)
I'm not sure what you mean. If you are the grappler or the grapplee, you've got the "grappled" condition, right?
/search
"If successful, both you and the target gain the grappled condition (see the Appendices)."
Yeah. So you both get all the penalties of being grappled.

Lokie |

Quote from PRD:
Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you.I think you can only make "one" attack when you're grappling. Also, casting a spell does require concernation check(10+ grappler's CMB+ spell level).
With the wording quoted from the PRD... I'd agree that you only get "AN" attack. Otherwise... one attack.
But this one attack can be against anyone you can reach.

Lokie |

By the way... I like the change to the grapple rule-set. In 3.5 if you were in a grapple you were stuck just resolving the grapple. (outside of possibly casting spells outside the grapple)
Now you can have a combat more like from a movie scene where the PC Monk is grappled from "behind" and can still make a attack at the second enemy menacing him with a poisoned knife from outside the grapple before fighting off the grappler.

Loopy |

By the way... I like the change to the grapple rule-set. In 3.5 if you were in a grapple you were stuck just resolving the grapple. (outside of possibly casting spells outside the grapple)
Now you can have a combat more like from a movie scene where the PC Monk is grappled from "behind" and can still make a attack at the second enemy menacing him with a poisoned knife from outside the grapple before fighting off the grappler.
I agree. Jackie Chan is always fighting dudes outside of the grapple while he's grappled. The grapple stuff did take some effort to get through this weekend, but I can see it becoming second nature to us over time.
I may create a separate "Grappled" field on my character sheet for any stats and stuff that change while I'm grappled.

Lokie |

Lokie wrote:By the way... I like the change to the grapple rule-set. In 3.5 if you were in a grapple you were stuck just resolving the grapple. (outside of possibly casting spells outside the grapple)
Now you can have a combat more like from a movie scene where the PC Monk is grappled from "behind" and can still make a attack at the second enemy menacing him with a poisoned knife from outside the grapple before fighting off the grappler.
I agree. Jackie Chan is always fighting dudes outside of the grapple while he's grappled. The grapple stuff did take some effort to get through this weekend, but I can see it becoming second nature to us over time.
I may create a separate "Grappled" field on my character sheet for any stats and stuff that change while I'm grappled.
I spent a $1 for a pdf sold here on paizo with PRPG status cards. The status cards once printed are a simple black and white affair... but they include grappled and pinned conditions. They also saved me the effort of making my own cards. :)

jreyst |

Okay well, apparently the PRD is worded differently than the book, because all I've been going by is the book. until today I didn't even have a link to the PRD, is that official and paizo produced?
As others may have already responded, yes, the PRD is official. It is created and released by Paizo.
If you prefer a fan-made and maintained version of the same rules, you can also find them here. This site is *not* made or maintained by Paizo but is legitimate, as it adheres to the Pathfinder Community Use license.

![]() |

Losing Grappler can make iterative attacks with a weapon!
I think a Full Round Action is contrary to the spirit of the rules.
But if you interpret the words of the rules you can also see, that a Full round action is not possible:
If you are grappled, you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action by making a combat maneuver check
So you can use a Standard Action to break the Grapple.
But if you do not want to break the Grapple, you can use your Standard Action andyou can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you
This is how I interpret and play this rule.
Whilst the Fighter 6 who is losing could take a Full Round Action and make two attacks at (BAB + Str) and (BAB+Str-5) - equivalent to CMB and CMB-5.
As I pointed out above, I do not think tht the Fighter gains iterative attacks. You also have to include the -2 penalty to attack rolls due to the "grappled" condition.

Loopy |

Hmmm....
If you are grappled, you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action by making a combat maneuver check
you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you
I think this is how they intended it to be:
you can take any standard action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you
That would make waaaay more sense with the "make an attack" language and with all the other actions they detail in the Grappled condition.

![]() |

I'm not sure if somebody addressed it already,
but the DEX penalty does NOT apply vs. your Grapple partner
(CMB or CMD or Melee Attacks or Touch AC)
Is this in the book? Because I am only using the PRD and the Grappled condition does not indicate any such clause - you lose 4 points of Dexterity if grappled - end of.

![]() |

Now you can have a combat more like from a movie scene where the PC Monk is grappled from "behind" and can still make a attack at the second enemy menacing him with a poisoned knife from outside the grapple before fighting off the grappler.
This I do like, although it seems a shame that the winning grappler can't do the same - I've seen movies where the hero ties up a few mooks (using towels etc) and still manages to kick or punch some more mooks (The Transporter is a good example of this).

Loopy |

Quandary wrote:Is this in the book? Because I am only using the PRD and the Grappled condition does not indicate any such clause - you lose 4 points of Dexterity if grappled - end of.I'm not sure if somebody addressed it already,
but the DEX penalty does NOT apply vs. your Grapple partner
(CMB or CMD or Melee Attacks or Touch AC)
I concur. I think he was still stuck in 3.5. :)

![]() |

I think a Full Round Action is contrary to the spirit of the rules.
Oh, I agree, but my point in this thread is judging whether the changes have just added extra complication and confusion whilst clearing up others.
But if you interpret the words of the rules you can also see, that a Full round action is not possible:
Whilst I can agree to some extent I think it could have been a lot clearer.
This is why I think the PF Grapple rules are just as complicated IMHO - the 3.5 rules seemed more complicated because they spelt out all the individual options available to a grappler, PF seems more concise, but that seems to be a result of giving one all encompassing "anything with one hand" option that can lead to different interpretations.

![]() |

Effects – all involved get grappled status – so print the effect on a card and hand it to all involved, no remembering just a quick check on the card (-4 DEX which means -2 on all DEX skills and effects, -2 on attack related rolls, concentration check to cast).
I am not a big fan of cards, but even so I still think 3.5 is as easy to remember:
No Threatened Squares: You don’t threaten any squares while grappling.
No Dexterity Bonus: You lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if you have one) against opponents you aren’t grappling. (You can still use it against opponents you are grappling.)
No Movement: You can’t move normally while grappling. You may, however, make an opposed grapple check to move while grappling.
Also, as you have usually already got a Dex-less AC written on your character sheet, you don't have to re-calculate stats or add extra derived stats to the character sheet (as someone was suggesting).
As for the other issues the rules make the distincyion between grappler and grapplee.
I really hope the PF RPG book is clearer than the PRD because it isn't clear in the latter that reversing the grapple gains you the +5, or that it then deprives the original grappler of their +5 bonus.

Blazej |

Cat-thulhu wrote:Effects – all involved get grappled status – so print the effect on a card and hand it to all involved, no remembering just a quick check on the card (-4 DEX which means -2 on all DEX skills and effects, -2 on attack related rolls, concentration check to cast).I am not a big fan of cards, but even so I still think 3.5 is as easy to remember:
No Threatened Squares: You don’t threaten any squares while grappling.
No Dexterity Bonus: You lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if you have one) against opponents you aren’t grappling. (You can still use it against opponents you are grappling.)
No Movement: You can’t move normally while grappling. You may, however, make an opposed grapple check to move while grappling.Also, as you have usually already got a Dex-less AC written on your character sheet, you don't have to re-calculate stats or add extra derived stats to the character sheet (as someone was suggesting).
However those three elements are not nearly all the things to remember for 3.5 grapple, so it isn't as easy as that post makes it sound.

![]() |

However those three elements are not nearly all the things to remember for 3.5 grapple, so it isn't as easy as that post makes it sound.
No, but then neither is Pathfinder as simple as just the Grappled Condition - my post was highlighting what the equivalent of the PF Grappled status is in 3.5.

![]() |

Grapplee - succeed at a CM check (standard action) to escape. If you don’t want to escape then you can become the grappler (for the +5 bonus to further CM rolls).
I would have thought it more difficult to reverse a grapple than to just escape. Since reversing the grapple would also include the necessity of freeing your limbs, then successfully grabbing the opponent.
Would it make sense to have the options be;
play safe, and escape, using regular CMB,
take a risk, and turn the tables, using CMB at a penalty (but what penalty? -2?, -4?)

![]() |

Tracking who is winning
In PF you now have to keep track of who is winning a grapple - the winner gets to stop grappling as a free action and if the loser failed to break free they get an extra +5 bonus next time.In 3.5 once you intiated a grapple you were both considered grappling - no need to track a winner or loser.
I think it's long overdue that there is a distinction between who is winning and losing the grapple. It should be more difficult to break a grapple you've already lost, than to initiate or avoid that grapple in the first place.
As it stood in 3.5, given two identical foes, there was no advantage (and indeed, a considerable disadvantage) to being the one who successfully struck first.You forfeited a 'proper' attack with a weapon, to apply an equally disadvantageous condition to the pair of you.
Your 'victim' only had to win one grapple check (at the same chance as you had), to change your 'grappled' condition to a pin, a procedure which would have taken an attacker two consecutive rounds.
By succeeding in a grapple, you effectively gave the advantage to your victim, which is just bizarre.
Advantage Pathfinder.
Tracking when Dex Bonus to AC is lost
Now it seems that a grappler only loses his Dexterity bonus to AC when he has pinned an opponent rather than when simply grappling.
At last.
By all means, make the participants easier to hit, but that is now done via a reduction to Dex rather than the previous wording, which was to forfeit all Dex bonus.This had unfortunate consequences, which I'm not sure were intended, opening up grappler and grapplee to Sneak Attack, regardless of their relative size, Strength or grapple bonuses, and whether the grappler would even be inconvenienced by the struggles of the victim.
(Example from one of our games: party comes round bend in the valley, to see smoke and hear screams. A stone giant steps up, holding a club in one hand and a chicken in the other. Pure flavour text, to show this is one of the raiders. Rogue looses an arrow, and declares 'Sneak Attack!', much to DM's puzzlement, and explains it due to the giant being forced to 'maintain a grapple' on the chicken.)

hogarth |

I think it's long overdue that there is a distinction between who is winning and losing the grapple. It should be more difficult to break a grapple you've already lost, than to initiate or avoid that grapple in the first place.
As it stood in 3.5, given two identical foes, there was no advantage (and indeed, a considerable disadvantage) to being the one who successfully struck first.
You forfeited a 'proper' attack with a weapon, to apply an equally disadvantageous condition to the pair of you.
Your 'victim' only had to win one grapple check (at the same chance as you had), to change your 'grappled' condition to a pin, a procedure which would have taken an attacker two consecutive rounds.
By succeeding in a grapple, you effectively gave the advantage to your victim, which is just bizarre.Advantage Pathfinder.
I guess it's a matter of taste. I liked the "symmetric" version of grapple in 3.5.

![]() |

I think it's long overdue that there is a distinction between who is winning and losing the grapple. It should be more difficult to break a grapple you've already lost, than to initiate or avoid that grapple in the first place.
I think this is a measure of interpretation, to me you have only really "lost" a grapple when you get pinned and can't get out, until then both people are often looking to inflict damage or secure a pin (at least that was how we did things in Ju Jitsu).
If you have iterative attacks though it is possible in 3.5 to initiate a grapple and then pin the opponent in one Full Round Action - something you can't do in Pathfinder because initiating a grapple is a Standard action, as is attempting a Pin.
Anyway, even if I agreed that PF was more "realistic" that doesn't necessarily make it any less complicated - would you agree? The extra tracking for who gets a +5 adds a layer of complication IMHO irrespective or how "realistic" it makes grappling.
By all means, make the participants easier to hit, but that is now done via a reduction to Dex rather than the previous wording, which was to forfeit all Dex bonus.
This had unfortunate consequences
I guess I can agree with this, but again I believe my point stands - it makes things more complicated (having to re-calculate an extra stats; CMD as well as AC), yes?
(Example from one of our games: party comes round bend in the valley, to see smoke and hear screams. A stone giant steps up, holding a club in one hand and a chicken in the other. Pure flavour...
Technically the player could try to pull the same trick in Pathfinder arguing that surely the Giant has the Chicken pinned (and thus loses his Dex bonus to defense as well as losing 4 points of dex). :D

Dracon |

Whilst reading the rulebook ready to run my Forgotten Realms Pathfinder tonight I personally, after playing out a scene with multiple combat maneuveurs vastly prefer the new system as whilst it has modifiers, I believe its vastly more intuitive and realistic. You also get more fluid combats than in 3.5 as the limited dynamics of the grappling steps in some ways slowed it down. I DO agree however that its not a perfectly simply solution that vastly reduces the overall difficulty of the situation, however I think they have given it more flexibility and a more fleshed out nature now.
Grappler reaches out to grab his target (-4 if one hand got a weapon in). Defender tries a swipe if Grappler not got IMPROVED FEAT (if he hits, the grappler takes another -penalty equal to the damage dealt to his attack roll)
Both are now "grappled" condition (no movement unless in control and succeed at your next check), -4 dex which is effectively -2 armour class for most, -2 to CMB/attacks at people OUTSIDE grapple etc) with Grappler "in control" - Also remember that tiny and smaller creature i.e Quasit swap str with their dex mod for CMB so it pays to be the larger creature when "grappled"
Defender has a choice..1) hmm break/reverse hold - (break will obviously let him/her act normally or reverse gives him/her control and the opportunity for the +5 bonus and control of where this grapple goes)
2) Make AN attack = one attack, cast a spell (always has been concentration roll) or any other one handed action i.e panicked wave.
Grappler in control on next turn rolls to maintain hold at +5 (remember if only using one hand to grapple hes still -4) and then can move (try to move him to throw off ledge or pit or into fireplace :) ), AUTOMATICALLY inflict unarmed, natural or one handed weapon damage - it doesnt say make an attack folks, it just says you inflict if that choice is taken, seems pretty good if your "in control" and for one reason or another cant hit the pesky blighter with a weapon hint hint or pin (grappler now loses all dex bonus not just the ones from -4 but person on floor pretty stuffed and more or less helpless).
Thats my take.

Dracon |

Hello Digital mate, see you in a few hours for the game ;)
I think this is a measure of interpretation, to me you have only really "lost" a grapple when you get pinned and can't get out, until then both people are often looking to inflict damage or secure a pin (at least that was how we did things in Ju Jitsu).
Very true, but if I have the better hand holds/position/weight placement then I would have a measure of the upper hand i.e the +5. Also bear in mind that the defender can cause damage with his/her attack, and for you to pin me, you would have to switch holds to provide the momentum/movement to get me on my backside, hence the reverse hold instead of break. The only difference is in Ju Jitsu, me and you wouldnt be operating one after the other in rounds ;)
If you have iterative attacks though it is possible in 3.5 to initiate a grapple and then pin the opponent in one Full Round Action - something you can't do in Pathfinder because initiating a grapple is a Standard action, as is attempting a Pin.
I always played grapple attack as a standard attack option due to the fact that swinging a sword will take less time to for instance reverse swing thereby getting two strokes for example than it would for me to take hold and adjust my position to get you held.
In the case of the giant, due to size difference I would say thats a pin condition ;), and the technicality of the chicken not really being built for grappling is surely a conditional penalty :)

tejón RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16 |

Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll.
Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as...
...such as grappling at a -4 penalty. I think that's the reversal mechanic. Harder than simply escaping, as it should be.