I've had this come up SEVERAL times in our games and it has continuously led to confusion.
We had an instance where my fighter grappled and pinned a powerful wizard in order to keep him from casting spells. The wizard's undead minions then attempted to grapple my fighter. After much debate about how this was supposed to work, if indeed the rules even allow for a daisy-chain grapple, the GM just gave up and had the minions attack normally.
In another game, which I hosted, one of the PCs was attacked by a young giant moray eel's bite attack and dragged off the jolly boat and into the water when it latched on with grab and moved the grapple. They were still at the surface of the water, however, and the other PCs wanted to grapple the eel and (since it was wrapped around their fellow) move the grapple (both the eel and their fellow) back onto the boat--essentially reaching into the water, grabbing them both, and hosting them back onto the boat.
Now, I know the grapple rules say you can make aid another grapple checks to give allies a chance to escape, but that doesn't seem to be what everyone is attempting to do here.
So what do the rules allow or disallow? How should the above scenarios have been run, according to the proper rules?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My understanding is the same as yours:
In situation #1, the undead minions can use Aid Another to help the wizard grapple, but they can't grapple the fighter directly.
In situation #2, the other PCs can use Aid Another to help the first PC reverse or break the grapple, but they can't grapple the eel directly.
Does it make sense? Not really, but the 3.5E multiple grappler rules weren't a whole lot better.
Buckle up, boys and girls, this is about to get weird.
Nothing about the grappled condition gives you immunity to being grappled (AFAIK).
The sticky point is how does forced movement interact with a grapple? Does the grappled character move along with the forced movement or is the grapple broken?
I don't think that situation is touched upon by the rules.
Multiple creatures can attempt to grapple one target. The creature that first initiates the grapple is the only one that makes a check, with a +2 bonus for each creature that assists in the grapple (using the Aid Another action). Multiple creatures can also assist another creature in breaking free from a grapple, with each creature that assists (using the Aid Another action) granting a +2 bonus on the grappled creature's combat maneuver check.
Think of it like this: When you grapple, both you and the enemy have the grappled condition. There are only two options when you come to enter the fray, help one or the other. Either way, you are aiding.
Yup. By RAW, you flat out cannot grapple someone who is already involved in a grapple, just aid another on the appropriate side.
Usually, I will house-rule that a successful combat maneuver can break a grapple up by bullrushing/dragging one party away from the other. The rules don't specify what's actually supposed to happen if one party is moved away from the other, but it seems like the best spirit of the rules way to handle things, but in terms of creating an option for breaking a grapple up, and just as a way for multiple maneuvers to interact in general.
Yup. By RAW, you flat out cannot grapple someone who is already involved in a grapple, just aid another on the appropriate side.
Citation?
Whew! I'm glad that got cleared up fast. I was worried this thread was going to go down a centipede hole.
** spoiler omitted **
Think of it like this: When you grapple, both you and the enemy have the grappled condition. There are only two options when you come to enter the fray, help one or the other. Either way, you are aiding.
I think the question the issue is, as RD puts it, daisy chaining the grapples. Can a grappler (the one who initiated the grapple) be grappled by a third party? If so, how does this interact with the grappled condition?
It seems clear to me that everyone gets the grappled condition as appropriate and the grappler can only attempt to escape one of the grappled conditions at a time. I hope I am wrong about this, as it makes mass grappling someone a rather good strategy.
Yup. By RAW, you flat out cannot grapple someone who is already involved in a grapple, just aid another on the appropriate side.Citation?
The grapple rules end with an entire subsection specifically explaining this:
Multiple Creatures
Multiple creatures can attempt to grapple one target. The creature that first initiates the grapple is the only one that makes a check, with a +2 bonus for each creature that assists in the grapple (using the Aid Another action). Multiple creatures can also assist another creature in breaking free from a grapple, with each creature that assists (using the Aid Another action) granting a +2 bonus on the grappled creature's combat maneuver check.
Yup. By RAW, you flat out cannot grapple someone who is already involved in a grapple, just aid another on the appropriate side.Citation?The grapple rules end with an entire subsection specifically explaining this:
Multiple Creatures
Multiple creatures can attempt to grapple one target. The creature that first initiates the grapple is the only one that makes a check, with a +2 bonus for each creature that assists in the grapple (using the Aid Another action). Multiple creatures can also assist another creature in breaking free from a grapple, with each creature that assists (using the Aid Another action) granting a +2 bonus on the grappled creature's combat maneuver check.
This does not address daisy chaining.
Diagram: "#" is an empty square. Assume, also, that everyone is hostile to each other (to make it clear that they will not be aiding each-other).
# # # # # #
# 1 2 3 4 #
# # # # # #
If 2 grapples 3, what happens when 1 wants to grapple 2 or 4 wants to grapple 3. The "multiple creatures" grappling rules don't cover this (as far as I can read it).
Edit: Or is this a 'the rules are permissive' argument? If it isn't covered in the rules you can't do it (so daisy chaining is impossible because the only rules for gang grappling involve using aid other)?
My understanding is that the intention of the "Multiple Creatures" subsection is that you just plain never have more than 2 people directly involved in a grapple. You've got two people with their arms wrapped around each other. If a third party comes along, they can, from the outside, try to hedge someone in so they can't get away, or pry someone off so the other person can get away, that's it.
The only other way to help is to just take advantage of the defensive bonuses the Grappled condition bestows on both of the primary parties, and wail away while your enemy is too busy to properly defend himself. This is usually the most sensible thing to do both tactically and logically (3 or more people all holding on to each other in a chain is not a reasonable combat scenario, it's a conga line), and tactically (your target already has the grappled condition, giving him a redundant copy doesn't change anything for him, you're giving it to yourself to, and you're wasting a turn you could spend just, you know, killing him or something).
Notably, this whole subsection is a major change from the 3.5 rules, which totally supported dozens of people piling into one great big insane grapple-katamari which lead to all kinds of stupid rules issues, like the famous wacky exploit of getting 100-commoners to grapple eachother, all spend their turns moving their opponent at half-speed, and thus travel 1500' in one turn.
Again though, personally, since the rules don't address the matter at all one way or the other, and it needs addressing somehow for forced movement cases (I suppose the literal RAWbot version would have 2 people grappling somehow while 20' apart after a hydraullic push?), I like to house rule that you can use pretty much any combat maneuver to bust a grapple up from the outside. Drag someone away, bull rush someone out of the way, disarm someone (as they are kinda wielding their opponent in a sense), start your own grapple which breaks them out of the initial one putting them in yours instead... doesn't really make sense for dirty trick and trip, but otherwise, it's the most sensible approach I can think of.
My understanding is that the intention of the "Multiple Creatures" subsection is that you just plain never have more than 2 people directly involved in a grapple. You've got two people with their arms wrapped around each other. If a third party comes along, they can, from the outside, try to hedge someone in so they can't get away, or pry someone off so the other person can get away, that's it.
The only other way to help is to just take advantage of the defensive bonuses the Grappled condition bestows on both of the primary parties, and wail away while your enemy is too busy to properly defend himself. This is usually the most sensible thing to do both tactically and logically (3 or more people all holding on to each other in a chain is not a reasonable combat scenario, it's a conga line), and tactically (your target already has the grappled condition, giving him a redundant copy doesn't change anything for him, you're giving it to yourself to, and you're wasting a turn you could spend just, you know, killing him or something).
Notably, this whole subsection is a major change from the 3.5 rules, which totally supported dozens of people piling into one great big insane grapple-katamari which lead to all kinds of stupid rules issues, like the famous wacky exploit of getting 100-commoners to grapple eachother, all spend their turns moving their opponent at half-speed, and thus travel 1500' in one turn.
Again though, personally, since the rules don't address the matter at all one way or the other, and it needs addressing somehow for forced movement cases (I suppose the literal RAWbot version would have 2 people grappling somehow while 20' apart after a hydraullic push?), I like to house rule that you can use pretty much any combat maneuver to bust a grapple up from the outside. Drag someone away, bull rush someone out of the way, disarm someone (as they are kinda wielding their opponent in a sense), start your own grapple which breaks them out of the initial one putting them in yours instead......
This reminds me of old console wrestling games where two guys are in a grapple and you are trying to grapple them... but all you end up doing is swiping at the air...
xxxxxxxxx
x 1 2 3 x
xxxx4xxxx
1 grapples 2
Both gain the grappled condition.
2 can breack free, become the grappler or can take any action that doesn't require two hands. So he can grapple 3 with penalties for the grappled condition and only one free hand.
1, 2 and 3 now have the grappled condition.
The rules for Multiple Creatures are not active because every creature has an other target.
Multiple creatures can attempt to grapple one target.
Now 4 wants to join the grapple. This is only possible with the Multiple Creatures rules because 1 to 3 are already target of a grapple.
What is happening when 4 makes a Bullrush, Reposition or Trip maneuver against 1 to 3? :)
Grapple rules are still confusing.
Grapple uses confusion.
It's super-effective!
Mage goes FIREBALL!
Grapple's confusion ended.
|
As the rules are written it seems that only 2 people will have the grappled condition in any grapple combat. There could only be at most 10 additional persons involved using aid another to one side or the other (assuming man sized combatants), room permitting, but none of these persons are or will have the grappled condition. (of course they could instead be attacking with swords or spells etc.)
The moment any of these extras become involved in any action which is not pertaining to one or the other of the grapplers then their interaction with them ceases to matter.
If 2 of the aides decide to grapple one another then they become a separate grapple.
So 1 grapples 2 and 3 wants to grapple 1 then this is by the rules 'aid another for 2'.
1 grapples 2 and 2 wants to grapple 3 then this is by the rules 'aid another for 1'.
Big eel grapples man, 4 friends grab eel (and man) = aid another x4 for the grapple to be reversed in the favour of the man and then the winning side gets to position the grapple (back in the boat).
The rules may not make sense but the GM is there to add the narrative:
GM: You see your friend entwined in the coils of a massive Eel.
(Eel has successfully grappled)
Players: We quickly try and grab our friend and if needed the Eel to stop him going under.
(3 successful Aid anothers = +6 plus successful grapple check by player reverses the grapple)
GM: Ok you seem to have gotten a good hold on the slimy skin except for you Brokas. What are you doing now with the thrashing creature?
Party: We'll pull it into the boat and then try and get Fred out of it.
(Grapple reversed party can move the eel back into the boat)
GM: Ok its in the boat what now?
Party: If we can hold it down we should be able to finish it off.
(Party rolls for a pin, again with aid another, and succeeds)
GM: Well 4 of you (including Fred) manage to hold it down, it's helpless.
Party: Ok we will behead it.
(Coup de gras follows)
The rules are somewhat abstract because otherwise you will have a hundred pages explaining all the sub clauses. As long as it works and doesn't generate stupid situations then does it really matter if you simplify it as above?
Sure, the rules are abstract, but they certainly don't allow you to use grapple (or pin) to make a creature helpless.
|
|
Sure, the rules are abstract, but they certainly don't allow you to use grapple (or pin) to make a creature helpless.
Not directly no.
But a Pinned opponent is a lot easier to bind, and once bound they are helpless.Grapple, then Pin, then Bind, then Helpless.
So we add an extra step where the party is binding the target from it being pinned.
Ultimately though I don't see a problem with this. After all it addresses exactly the situations you have stated in your opening post about chain grapples and doesn't require any re interpreting or re design of the rules.
It doesn't lack mechanically anything you want to do.
Is it cinematic in and of itself? No but as stated before it is the GM's job to add that, not the rules.
(edited for clarification and additional thought)
Binding someone does not necessarily make them helpless. It has been (and I believe currently still is) heavily debated.
Since both combatants are considered grapple a 3rd party would make a cmb check to pin one of the other two?
Knight jumps queen! Bishop jumps queen! Pawns jump queen!
Further, I don't see what problems this ruling would cause.
If you are grappled by two people, but only get one action to escape... you are kind of hooped.
Nope. The problem is only with the grapple controller being protected from being grappled, and he can release the grapple as a free action so he's only involved in one.Further, I don't see what problems this ruling would cause.If you are grappled by two people, but only get one action to escape... you are kind of hooped.
How is that the only problem? If you allow free-for-all grappling and someone is grappled by two people and "you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action by making a combat maneuver check (DC equal to your opponent's CMD; this does not provoke an attack of opportunity) or Escape Artist check (with a DC equal to your opponent's CMD)."
You aren't getting two standard actions, so you could only ever escape one. But this is a hypothetical, since it appears the consensus is you can't actually grapple anyone in a grapple (beyond using aid other).
You aren't getting two standard actions, so you could only ever escape one. But this is a hypothetical, since it appears the consensus is you can't actually grapple anyone in a grapple (beyond using aid other).
In 3.5E, I believe they handled it by comparing a single grapple check against the grappling checks of everyone opposing you in the group grapple; you didn't have to make separate grapple checks against all of your opponents.
|
|
Since both combatants are considered grapple a 3rd party would make a cmb check to pin one of the other two?
Knight jumps queen! Bishop jumps queen! Pawns jump queen!
No. As the rules stand the 3rd party can only Aid Another to assist one of the 2 grapplers.
And yes jerrys the rule basically say just that - you can only assist a grapple by Aid Another.
Like I have said before, its not realistic but it also saves on 30 pages of conditions and interactions between all combinations of adding a 3rd or 4th etc person into the mix via various actions.
Fundamentally the designers have basically said - describe your actions as whatever you want, but the effect is Aid Another.
Sorry, that was meant to be a mel brooks joke, not a suggestion.
If you are aiding someone in a grapple with the aid another action, are you yourself then considered to have the grappled condition?
No. As the rules stand the 3rd party can only Aid Another to assist one of the 2 grapplers.
I still haven't seen any proof of this.
|
|
Under the ruling for multiple grapples the only statement is that you must use Aid Another. It does not state or imply that Aid Another also imbues the aiding person with the grappled condition.
Similarly Aid Another does not state or imply that using it on a person with a condition also imbues that condition on the user.
As a personal note to RD, why are you splitting infinitives here?
In my 30 years plus experience any system, for playability, simpler tends to be better especially when there are multiple actions that need to be taken by many persons. If anything the more people involved the faster and simpler the action should be before the game gets bogged down into a 3 hour real time grapple.
Why do you see a need to make all sorts of exceptions or to add complications when they will only detract from the speed of game play?
I have offered a (admittedly as interpreted by myself, hence biased) solution to the issues you are having in your opening post, which do not require any changes to the rule system, sequence of play or addition of needless detail. They work as RAW and as RAI.
So seriously, what is the issue you are having here? The rule wording isn't exacting enough? Not enough detail on the actions?
What value in the combat would Aid Another have in bestowing the grappled condition on the Aiding person? Especially when given the fact that if you are on the winning side dropping a grapple is a free action?
Is it a desire for complexity for its own sake?
Help me here Im not trying to insult you nor imply that you are ignorant or ANYTHING in any way shape or form like that. All I have seen is objections to my explanations without a counter argument as to why they are not sufficent for you.
I can't speak for the designers intent because only they know what they mean. So if this discussion really requires input from them to satisfy your desire for a resolution then I can only suggest that you post this question on one of the ASK ... forums or flag this issue for FAQ.
I may well be wrong in my proposed solution to the OP, but I do know that it will work at least.
In all respectfulness to you Sir.
The issue is that my players are unhappy.
In the case of the eel versus the "fisherman" they wanted to move the grapple, but the rules seemingly wouldn't allow for it.
That's my problem. Unhappy players.
I didn't. I ended up saying creatures had cover when it should have been improved cover, improved cover when it should have been total cover, and so on.
Still made the encounters hellishly hard.
And it does absolutely nothing to solve the underlying problem with the rules: only errata can do that.