| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a few areas of the grappling RAW are annoyingly vague or produce weird results, so this is an attempt to clarify and correct these areas. I would very much appreciate your help and input on making this "house errata", ensuring it’s as close to both RAW and what we believe to be RAI as possible (or correct me if I’ve missed something in the current rules).
In addition, I believe the numbers in the grappling rules have rather counter-intuitive effects, so I also have a more typical house rule suggestion that could need some polishing from you.
First, the vague or weird parts of the current RAW and my “errata” so far:
1. Initiating grapple with reach:
If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space...
This means that if, for example, an enlarged PC successfully grapples a non-adjacent BBEG, the PC can also immediately drop the BBEG into whatever burning pit/acid pool/horrible black void the PC might be adjacent to, and the BBEG isn't even allowed a save. The lack of a small and simple addition makes this inconsistent with the grapple “Move” action and allows for some ridiculously devastating combos. Makes me believe this obvious error is just an editing mistake, not a rules design flaw and certainly not intentional.
Errata: Copy and paste the following line to the section above:
If you attempt to place your foe in a hazardous location, such as in a wall of fire or over a pit, the target receives a free attempt to break your grapple with a +4 bonus.
2. The "two hands" and "a" in the grapple and grappled condition texts (my emphasis):
...you can take any action that doesn’t require two hands to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon...
If following these insufficient rules to the letter, you’ll often get very large, (mostly) unjustified and sometimes plain silly differences between how affected even similar creatures’ offense are by being grappled, for example:
A. A creature with six hands cannot attack with any of the three falchions it wields as those attacks require two hands.
B. If the same creature instead wields six battleaxes, it may attack with one of these - ”a light or one-handed weapon”.
C. If the creature instead has six claw attacks, it can make all six in a full attack since claw attacks don’t require hands at all, and neither are claws ”a light or one-handed weapon”.
D. If the creature instead has three slam attacks it can make all of them, except those using arms ending in hands (as in the case of an eidolon’s arms, for example).
Did the devs suddenly forget they’ve designed plenty of creatures other than humanoids with one pair of hands? Maybe those creatures weren’t supposed to be involved in grappling…
The FAQ does give us a few hints on the RAI, but also confuses things by being even more focused on creatures with two hands (my emphasis):
The RAW do allow the grappled to make a full attack action, assuming they can do so with only one hand.
The RAW states that the action cannot require two hands, which I believe is far from the same as saying only attacks that can be taken ”with only one hand” are possible. Is a grappled creature’s full attack limited to attacks using only a single hand? Or is it limited to attacks that don’t require two hands?
You are no longer draped all over the target. It is more like you got a hold on them, typically an arm (hence the restriction) .
So the intent of the “no-2H-actions”-rule, AFAICT, is to reflect that an opponent has got hold of one of the grappled creature’s limbs – ”typically an arm” – which thus cannot be used to take actions. Is it RAI that grappled creatures without the hands or weapon/attack types mentioned in the RAW should also have their actions limited by having one less important limb at their disposal? If so, how do you find out which limb has been taken hold of?
Errata:
...attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll. If successful, [choose one of the foe’s limbs (arm, leg, head, tail, tentacle, wing etc.). Until the grapple ends, the foe cannot take actions requiring the use of the chosen limb. For example, choosing an arm prevents the foe from taking actions using a handheld item (such as a weapon attack) with that arm, choosing the head prevents the foe from making bite and gore attacks etc. Constant abilities or properties bound to the limb, such as speech, sight or worn items, are unaffected. In addition,] both you and the target...
Errata:
...you can take any action that doesn’t require [the use of the limb the foe has chosen when initiating the grapple. Typically, this means] you can take any action that doesn’t require two hands to perform, such...
1. Easier to escape Pinned than Grappled:
Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack....
…you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC.
Let’s say a lvl 8 barb PC is being grappled by a villain with approximately similar stats. The barb has a CMB of 16 (8 bab, 8 str) and the villain a CMD of 27 (8 bab, 7 str, 4 dex, -2 dex grappled), meaning each escape attempt made by the barb has a 50% chance of succeeding. If the villain pins the barb, the barb’s CMB remains unaffected while the villain’s CMD loses the Dex bonus, and suddenly the barb has a 60% chance of succeeding on an escape attempt. This seems to run counter to the description and RAI of pinned being a more serious and physically restraining condition than grappled.
Errata:
…you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC, [but your CMD receives no penalty versus the pinned enemy’s combat maneuver checks to escape].
What do you think? Are there any less complex or otherwise better ways to handle these issues, without deviating further from RAW and RAI?
And second, the house rule suggestion:
1. Easier to initiate grapple than to prevent escape from grapple:
The grappled condition gives dex penalties while Greater Grapple, Grab and the inherent +5 bonus to maintain only give bonuses to CMB on grapple checks, not to CMD. This means most creatures, especially those focusing on grapple, usually have a very good chance of succeeding on their initial grapple attempt, but have a relatively poor chance of preventing the grappled enemy from escaping on the enemy’s turn. This is very counter-intuitive, IMO, since it means it’s easy to establish a hold, but difficult to keep it. In addition, the inherent +5 bonus to CMB checks to maintain a grapple suggests the RAI is that it should indeed be easier to keep the hold than to establish it.
House Rule:
Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity, , [but the CMD of the creature initiating the grapple instead gains a +1 bonus versus the grappled enemy’s combat maneuver checks made to escape or reverse the grapple].
Reasonable?
First thought: So as a human, I can grapple with my left leg? Or my head?
Second thought: With regards to the pinned problem, I think it would read more smoothly and be more intuitive as "you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC against all creatures except the one you are pinning".
Third thought: Also, you haven't dealt with another oddity. Let's say that I'm a 10 Dex fighter. If I am grappled, I take a -4 penalty to Dex, so my CMD is 2 lower than normal. If I am pinned, I am merely "denied my Dexterity bonus", so my CMD is the same as normal. In my system, I solved this by replacing the -4 Dex from the grappled condition with "You lose your Dexterity bonus to AC to all opponents except the one you are grappling". Thoughts?
First thought: So as a human, I can grapple with my left leg? Or my head?
No, you're still subject to the RAW that says as a humanoid you must have two hands free to grapple. The creature initiating the grapple chooses one of the enemy's limbs, you don't choose one of your own limbs to perform the grapple with (that would require multiple limbs with the Grab ability). Please let me know how you came to this conclusion, maybe my wording is off.
Second thought: With regards to the pinned problem, I think it would read more smoothly and be more intuitive as "you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC against all creatures except the one you are pinning".
Ah, of course! Much better, thanks!
Third thought: Also, you haven't dealt with another oddity. Let's say that I'm a 10 Dex fighter. If I am grappled, I take a -4 penalty to Dex, so my CMD is 2 lower than normal. If I am pinned, I am merely "denied my Dexterity bonus", so my CMD is the same as normal. In my system, I solved this by replacing the -4 Dex from the grappled condition with "You lose your Dexterity bonus to AC to all opponents except the one you are grappling". Thoughts?
Good idea. I'll see if I can edit the OP with this.
First thought: So as a human, I can grapple with my left leg? Or my head?No, you're still subject to the RAW that says as a humanoid you must have two hands free to grapple. The creature initiating the grapple chooses one of the enemy's limbs, you don't choose one of your own limbs to perform the grapple with (that would require multiple limbs with the Grab ability). Please let me know how you came to this conclusion, maybe my wording is off.
What RAW saying that humanoids must have two hands free to grapple? I don't see that; the only thing I see is that I take a -4 penalty to attempts to grapple a foe if I don't have two hands free. (As far as I can tell, that means that, RAW, I can already grapple a foe with nothing but my legs and my sheer force of will. I kind of hope I'm wrong here.)
Let's say I am grappled by Bob the enemy. Bob designates my head as the target of what he is grappling. Therefore, I am grappling with my head and can't take any actions requiring the use of my head. I'm not sure what implications that has (can I still speak? Can I think?) but it fits your errata as written.
Also, if Bob chooses my right leg, I can't take actions requiring the use of that leg. Does that include movement? Does that include taking a full attack? Does that include standing up?
What RAW saying that humanoids must have two hands free to grapple? I don't see that; the only thing I see is that I take a -4 penalty to attempts to grapple a foe if I don't have two hands free. (As far as I can tell, that means that, RAW, I can already grapple a foe with nothing but my legs and my sheer force of will. I kind of hope I'm wrong here.)
Yes, -4 it is, sorry about that. And yes, it does mean a humanoid can grapple with its legs. If it matters whether the rules simulate reality well (not very much IMO), grappling with your legs is possible in reality as well, though it's probably a tad harder than "a -4 penalty"...
Let's say I am grappled by Bob the enemy. Bob designates my head as the target of what he is grappling. Therefore, I am grappling with my head and can't take any actions requiring the use of my head. I'm not sure what implications that has (can I still speak? Can I think?) but it fits your errata as written.
Constant abilities or properties bound to the limb, such as speech, sight or worn items, are unaffected.
So in approximately 95% of in-game situations, this "only" has the effect that you lose the physical attacks requiring the use of the grappled limb. The other 5% is stuff such as being grappled while trying to use the limb to interact with objects or the environment (pick something up, use disable device etc).
Also, if Bob chooses my right leg, I can't take actions requiring the use of that leg. Does that include movement?
You can't move regardless of which limb Bob grapples. My "errata" changes nothing in the current RAW regarding movement.
Does that include taking a full attack? Does that include standing up?
It can virtually never prevent you from taking a full attack, but it will usually alter the number and types of attacks in your full attack action. Let's say you have talons on your feet, grappling your right leg means you can still take a full attack, but that full attack will only include one talon attack (using your left leg) instead of your usual two talon attacks (assuming you have one pair of legs with talons), plus of course any other attacks you can make using other limbs. Even if the only manufactured weapon you're wielding requires the use of your right leg and you have no natural attacks, you can still make a full attack using unarmed strikes. The only case where you'd be denied your full attack is if you were grappled by the head as a creature with only head related attacks and no other limbs to make unarmed strikes with (i.e. you're a snake or ?).
Let's say I am grappled by Bob the enemy. Bob designates my head as the target of what he is grappling. Therefore, I am grappling with my head and can't take any actions requiring the use of my head. I'm not sure what implications that has (can I still speak? Can I think?) but it fits your errata as written.
Constant abilities or properties bound to the limb, such as speech, sight or worn items, are unaffected.So in approximately 95% of in-game situations, this "only" has the effect that you lose the physical attacks requiring the use of the grappled limb. The other 5% is stuff such as being grappled while trying to use the limb to interact with objects or the environment (pick something up, use disable device etc).
You're right, I missed that line. I'm not too worried about the head, then. That also addresses my questions about the leg; what I was trying to get at, although I didn't make that clear, was whether using the leg to stand up was considered an active use of the leg or merely a property of the leg. It seems clear that your system would not prevent the creature from using the leg to stand.
Therefore, I think it's a workable system mechanically. I've been trying to figure out why I still don't like it thematically. I think it's because of the element of choice on the attacker's part. That feels like one more level of complexity on top of an already very complex mechanic. Additionally, knowing which part to grapple requires a level of knowledge about your enemy that not everyone would have - but you are forcing them to make that choice anyway.
I think I would prefer a system where there was a "default" choice so that a player could simply say "I grapple the monster" without worrying about which of the four scary-looking appendages he grapples. A player who wanted flexibility to shut down a particular appendage could do that, but there would be some sort of cost associated - perhaps a -2 on the grapple attack. How does that sound?
You're right, I missed that line. I'm not too worried about the head, then. That also addresses my questions about the leg; what I was trying to get at, although I didn't make that clear, was whether using the leg to stand up was considered an active use of the leg or merely a property of the leg. It seems clear that your system would not prevent the creature from using the leg to stand.
Yes. And besides, there's nothing in the RAW (or reality) requiring a biped to have control of both its legs in order to stand up from prone.
Therefore, I think it's a workable system mechanically. I've been trying to figure out why I still don't like it thematically. I think it's because of the element of choice on the attacker's part. That feels like one more level of complexity on top of an already very complex mechanic. Additionally, knowing which part to grapple requires a level of knowledge about your enemy that not everyone would have - but you are forcing them to make that choice anyway.
Your doubts are very similar to my own, especially regarding the added complexity. A couple of thoughts though:
1. Monster knowledge and associated skills do become a bit more important, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. (Though in most cases, a monster's most dangerous appendage is quite obvious, more so if you've already seen the creature attack.)
2. When it's not obvious, forcing the choice could add fun:
DM: "A large mass of writhing tentacles beneath three bizarre heads make up this nightmare creature.
Player 1: "I grapple its... its... ehh?"
DM: "One head has no eyes and consists of what looks like a big funnel, a black slimy hole with no visible teeth, the second is insect-like with a three-parted jaw and two long mandibles, and the third and middle head only has four huge glittering green eyes, one pointing in each direction. The six long tentacles all end in vicious hooks, dripping with black slime. What do you try to get hold of?
Player 2: "Grab the middle head, those eyes look like bad news!"
Player 1: "Ok, I try to grab the head with four eyes."
I think I would prefer a system where there was a "default" choice so that a player could simply say "I grapple the monster" without worrying about which of the four scary-looking appendages he grapples. A player who wanted flexibility to shut down a particular appendage could do that, but there would be some sort of cost associated - perhaps a -2 on the grapple attack. How does that sound?
My initial idea was actually that the creature being grappled would choose which limb/attack it would lose, but I soon abandoned this because the rules would need to specify which limbs/attacks that would be OK for the creature to choose and which ones that wouldn't. Tricky and complex since I wanted the rules to be in line with the supposed RAI which is basically: "lose one of your most important attacks and any associated iteratives". I believe your "default choice" suggestion will run into the same problem. But if you can think of a good, less complex, way to define this, it would be great.
Thanks a lot for your help BTW!
Yes. And besides, there's nothing in the RAW (or reality) requiring a biped to have control of both its legs in order to stand up from prone.
I would think that standing without your legs would be quite difficult - an Acrobatics check, at least, in a realistic system. But I don't think it's worth making rules for.
1. Monster knowledge and associated skills do become a bit more important, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. (Though in most cases, a monster's most dangerous appendage is quite obvious, more so if you've already seen the creature attack.)
2. When it's not obvious, forcing the choice could add fun:
DM: "A large mass of writhing tentacles beneath three bizarre heads make up this nightmare creature.
Player 1: "I grapple its... its... ehh?"
DM: "One head has no eyes and consists of what looks like a big funnel, a black slimy hole with no visible teeth, the second is insect-like with a three-parted jaw and two long mandibles, and the third and middle head only has four huge glittering green eyes, one pointing in each direction. The six long tentacles all end in vicious hooks, dripping with black slime. What do you try to get hold of?
Player 2: "Grab the middle head,...
It could add fun. I just fear that it will more generally add confusion. There's a specific thing that this does which I don't like: when the player tries to do something simple ("I grapple the monster"), and then everything has to grind to a halt while the DM has to explain "it's not actually that simple, here are the rules and implications of the choice that you didn't know you had to make". It reminds me of my efforts to explain defensive casting to new players - they try to cast a spell while threatened, and then everything grinds to a halt while I explain the rules and implications around the defensive casting choice they didn't know they had to make (ignoring that it's stupid not to just 5' step away, which is another level of complexity...). I want to minimize or eliminate those moments as much as possible.
That's why I want there to be a default choice. As you noted, it wouldn't work for the person being grappled to choose, so it has to be more impartial. There are a couple of potential approaches. The simplest would be that the default choice is always the primary arm or arm-equivalent. Few creatures lack arms, and those that do could require the grappler to choose which limb. If you're grappling a bird or the three-headed monstrosity you described, you're already in an odd situation, so I'm okay with the game slowing down to explain that point.
But I don't think it's worth making rules for.
I agree.
It could add fun. I just fear that it will more generally add confusion. There's a specific thing that this does which I don't like: when the player tries to do something simple ("I grapple the monster"), and then everything has to grind to a halt while the DM has to explain "it's not actually that simple, here are the rules and implications of the choice that you didn't know you had to make". It reminds me of my efforts to explain defensive casting to new players - they try to cast a spell while threatened, and then everything grinds to a halt while I explain the rules and implications around the defensive casting choice they didn't know they had to make (ignoring that it's stupid not to just 5' step away, which is another level of complexity...). I want to minimize or eliminate those...
For what it's worth, I agree with you 100% and wish the grapple rules had been designed with more focus on speed and simplicity to begin with. Unfortunately, for some reason the grapple rules deviate from most other rules, which I believe put a higher value on fun and playability than realism. If I had been trying to replace the RAW with (in our opinion) superior, less complex grapple rules, I think we would've found this a lot easier. But if I'm going to stick to RAW and RAI as much as possible, it seems I'm also going to have to tango with the "simulation style".
There are a couple of potential approaches. The simplest would be that the default choice is always the primary arm or arm-equivalent. Few creatures lack arms, and those that do could require the grappler to choose which limb. If you're grappling a bird or the three-headed monstrosity you described, you're already in an odd situation, so I'm okay with the game slowing down to explain that point.
You know, this could work - the default limb is "arm" and the initiating party will only have to choose if the choice might actually make a significant difference or the opponent lacks arms. (It might make the grapple rules seem more open to DM fiat, but in fact all rules are, so I don't mind.)
I'll show this to my DM and see what he thinks. Thanks!
For what it's worth, I agree with you 100% and wish the grapple rules had been designed with more focus on speed and simplicity to begin with. Unfortunately, for some reason the grapple rules deviate from most other rules, which I believe put a higher value on fun and playability than realism. If I had been trying to replace the RAW with (in our opinion) superior, less complex grapple rules, I think we would've found this a lot easier. But if I'm going to stick to RAW and RAI as much as possible, it seems I'm also going to have to tango with the "simulation style".
Makes sense. The closer you stick to core, the more portable the changes are (and the more likely your DMs are to agree with them), which is always nice.
You know, this could work - the default limb is "arm" and the initiating party will only have to choose if the choice might actually make a significant difference or the opponent lacks arms. (It might make the grapple rules seem more open to DM fiat, but in fact all rules are, so I don't mind.)
I'll show this to my DM and see what he thinks. Thanks!
Glad I can help! Let me know how it goes.
Oh, and one more thing, since we've more or less figured out base grapple rules:
CMD should not be used to resist attempts to escape a grapple. Yes, it's convenient. It also happens to make no sense whatsoever. Here is a short list of things that make you better at holding onto an opponent in a grapple:
- Rings of protection
- The Dodge feat
- That one ioun stone that gives an insight bonus to AC
- Having cover
- An ally using Aid Another to improve your AC (but not your attack rolls or grapple checks!)
This is incredibly stupid. Now, there are a couple of ways to fix this. The most obvious is to say that, unlike most things, breaking out of a grapple requires an opposed CMB check. Yes, it breaks the symmetry of always using CMB vs CMD. But... come on. Shield of faith and protection from evil help you grapple people? I mean... really?
Oh, and one more thing, since we've more or less figured out base grapple rules:
CMD should not be used to resist attempts to escape a grapple. Yes, it's convenient. It also happens to make no sense whatsoever. Here is a short list of things that make you better at holding onto an opponent in a grapple:
- Rings of protection
- The Dodge feat
- That one ioun stone that gives an insight bonus to AC
- Having cover
- An ally using Aid Another to improve your AC (but not your attack rolls or grapple checks!)
This is incredibly stupid. Now, there are a couple of ways to fix this. The most obvious is to say that, unlike most things, breaking out of a grapple requires an opposed CMB check. Yes, it breaks the symmetry of always using CMB vs CMD. But... come on. Shield of faith and protection from evil help you grapple people? I mean... really?
This is a very good suggestion, I believe. Besides removing stupid bonuses which should be irrelevant (hadn't even thought of those), it also reduces the weird imbalances of initiating vs. keeping a grip. But I'm hesitant as to whether all the potential CMB bonuses should apply to the opposed check as well, since that would make it extremely hard to break free from a grapple. (For example, maintain + IG + GG + Grab = initiator has +13 to CMB checks.)
I think I would prefer reducing the +5 maintain bonus to +2, and moving that bonus and the +2 GG bonus to opposed CMB checks only, while restricting the +4 Grab bonus to CMB vs. CMD checks and keeping the +2 IG bonus on both. A creature with all these bonuses would thus end up with a +6 to the CMB vs. CMD checks (i.e. initiate and maintain, 4 Grab + 2 IG), and a +6 to the opposed CMB checks (2 maintain + 2 IG + 2 GG). Initiating the grapple would also be harder than to maintain it, since the target's CMD suffers from the Dex penalty from the Grappled condition when making maintain checks.
Reasonable?
We're getting into hazier territory on my end, because the difference between my preferred implementation of grapple and Pathfinder's implementation are much more substantial here. As a result, I just don't know the full implications of Pathfinder's system here. To the extent that I follow your numbers, it seems reasonable. I would say that when both parties roll a d20, high modifiers are a bit less scary than normal, since there is the potential for one person to roll poorly and for the other to roll well.
OK, here's the complete errata so far, including a few minor tweaks I realized were required in order to remove contradictions and make things less confusing. Changes/additions to the RAW in bold.
As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options. If you do not have Improved Grapple, grab, or a similar ability, attempting to grapple a foe provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. Creatures attempting to grapple a foe without two free hands (or similar appendages capable of gripping), or the grab ability and another free limb, take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll. If successful, you have established a grip on the foe’s arm and primary hand (or another hand of your choice), preventing the foe from taking actions requiring the use of that limb until the grapple ends. See Grapple Different Creatures below for details on grappling a creature with other types of limbs, such as a horse or a dragon. In addition, both you and the target gain the grappled condition. If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails). If you attempt to place your foe in a hazardous location, such as in a wall of fire or over a pit, the target receives a free attempt to break your grapple with a +4 bonus.
Although both creatures have the grappled condition, you can, as the creature that initiated the grapple, release the grapple as a free action, removing the condition from both you and the target. If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold. As long as you have successfully grappled the target during your turn, you get a +4 circumstance bonus on opposed grapple checks during the target's turn. 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 (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple).
Move
No changes.Damage
No changes.Pin
You can give your opponent the pinned condition (see Conditions). Despite pinning your opponent, you still only have the grappled condition, [smaller]DELETE: [but you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC][/smaller] and you gain an additional +2 circumstance bonus on all combat maneuver checks made to grapple the pinned opponent, including opposed checks (this stacks with the bonus granted by a successful grapple).Tie Up
No changes.If You Are Grappled
If you are grappled, you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action by making a combat maneuver (this does not provoke an attack of opportunity) or Escape Artist check, opposed by a CMB check made by the creature initiating the grapple. If you succeed, you break the grapple and can act normally. Alternatively, you can attempt to become the grappler by making an opposed combat maneuver check, but since you cannot use the hand gripped by the creature grappling you, your check typically takes the -4 penalty for not having two hands free (see grapple above). If you succeed, you will instead be grappling the other creature (meaning that the other creature cannot freely release the grapple without making a combat maneuver check, while you can). Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that doesn’t require the use of the limb gripped by the opponent (typically your primary hand and arm) to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack, using any other limbs, against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you. See Grapple Different Creatures below and the grappled condition for additional details. If you are pinned, your actions are very limited. See the pinned condition in Conditions for additional details.Multiple Creatures
No changes.Grapple Different Creatures
If the creature you grapple does not have a primary hand, the DM suggests which of the opponent's limbs you grip or decides which limbs you may choose between. Until the grapple ends, the foe cannot take actions requiring the use of that limb. For example, gripping an arm prevents any actions using a handheld item (such as weapon attacks) or slam attacks with that arm, while gripping the head prevents any associated bite or gore attacks. Constant abilities or properties bound to the gripped limb, such as sight, speech or worn items, are unaffected.Note to DM: The limb you suggest the PC grips should typically be important to the grappled creature, preferably a limb which can be compared to a primary hand for a humanoid. So unless the abilities of the creature's limbs are completely new to the PC or well hidden, suggest the limb most vital for the creature in combat (for example the front paw of a bear or the head of a dragon). However, if the PC attempts to grapple a truly alien creature (such as a demon or aberration) the PC has very little or no knowledge about, you may instead share only the most strikingly obvious characteristics of the creature's limbs and have the PC choose between all of them.
Grappled
A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. A grappled creature cannot move and is denied its Dexterity bonus to AC against all attacks and combat maneuvers, except those made by a grappled opponent. 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, the creature initiating the grapple can take no action that requires the use of the two limbs it must use in the grapple, while the opponent can take no action that requires the use of the limb gripped by the creature initiating the grapple. A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.A grappled creature cannot use Stealth to hide from the creature grappling it, even if a special ability, such as hide in plain sight, would normally allow it to do so. If a grappled creature becomes invisible, through a spell or other ability, it gains a +2 circumstance bonus on its CMD to avoid being grappled, but receives no other benefit.
Casting Spells while Grappled/Grappling: The only spells which can be cast while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand. Even so, you must make a concentration check (DC 10 + the grappler's CMB + the level of the spell you're casting) or lose the spell.
Greater Grapple
You are skilled at grappling opponents.Prerequisites: Dex 13, Improved Unarmed Strike or the grab ability.
Benefit: You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when performing a grapple combat maneuver. In addition, you receive a +2 bonus on checks made to grapple a foe, including opposed checks. You also receive a +2 bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense whenever an opponent tries to grapple you.
Normal: You provoke an attack of opportunity when performing a grapple combat maneuver.
Greater Grapple
Maintaining a grapple is second nature to you.Prerequisites: Improved Grapple, Improved Unarmed Strike or the grab ability, base attack bonus +6, Dex 13.
Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on opposed checks made to grapple a foe during a grappled opponent's turn (not to opposed checks initiated by a you). This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Grapple. Once you have grappled a creature, maintaining the grapple is a move action. This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round (to move, harm, or pin your opponent), but you are not required to make two checks. You only need to succeed at one of these checks to maintain the grapple.
Normal: Maintaining a grapple is a standard action.
If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. Unless otherwise noted, grab can only be used against targets of a size equal to or smaller than the creature with this ability. If the creature can use grab on creatures of other sizes, it is noted in the creature's Special Attacks line.
Hold
The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself. A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature’s descriptive text).Creatures with the grab special attack receive a +4 bonus on combat maneuver checks made to start and maintain a grapple during the creature's own turn (not to opposed checks initiated by a grappled opponent). Creatures with the grab special attack can also ignore the Improved Unarmed Strike feat prerequisite of the Improved Grapple feat.
Please let me know if you find anything weird or confusing.
I would say that when both parties roll a d20, high modifiers are a bit less scary than normal, since there is the potential for one person to roll poorly and for the other to roll well.
Yeah, I decided to increase the "maintain" bonus to the opposed CMB checks to +4, bringing it closer to the RAW as well.
Can I use these new rules to put someone in a leg-lock/figure-four? How about, you can grapple someone and must select one limb of theirs to "latch" and you must utilize two limbs to grapple without penalty (which would include locking them with both your legs, 1 arm and 1 non-arm, or two arms) or you can use one hand at a penalty, but not limbs that don't have a hand.
I'd say a leg-lock is much closer to a pin than a grapple. Remember that the RAW and FAQ quite clearly states grapple means "you've got a hold on an opponent" (or similar), not that you've tied up the opponent in some judo or Roman Wrestling hold. Otherwise, read the compiled rules above! I think you should be able to do something similar, but humanoids will take penalties from not using two hands, and there's nothing to be gained by using more than two limbs in a grapple (for any creature). I'm afraid incorporating a special case such as this would make the already too complex rules horribly slow in play.
I hope you like the "house errata" otherwise!