Sure, base grappling is bad, because if it was good then there would be no point to taking the feats. However, with the feats...
Mmmm, I feel a dejavu here.
Yes, I agree that a base fighter without any feat shouldn't be able to grapple things to death. However, there are creatures that have grab, and a lore of being good grapplers, like the bear, and some others, that *really* should think about grappling their foes when they have the chance, and they should mantain those grapples because it should be beneficial to them. Currently, it's not the case, unless the creature has also constrict, or rake, or *maybe* swallow whole. Everything else is pointless, because it's just limiting your own damage, without limiting at all the damage of your grappled foe. And as you are considered grappled as well, and you get -2 attack and -4 DEX just like the guy losing the grapple does, it's a wash. So there's no real difference in game between being in a grapple, and having the upper hand, or being in a grapple, and lose it. Except that the one with the upper hand, can do less damage. That doesn't really sound well. Regardless of how powerful grapple is, for PC with tetori monk class, half a dozen feats, and a belt that gives them constrict.
By the rules, yes, you absolutely need a specific feat to hold an animal's mouth closed while grappling. And only after it tries to bite you, and only as long as it's no more than one size category larger.
Seriously, nothing about grapple stops bite attacks. If you grapple a tiger, no other modifications, that tiger is absolutely allowed to attempt to fit your face in its mouth.
If you're saying that's wrong... well, I can flag this to be moved to homebrew. Because even with all the ambiguity around grapple it's absolutely clear that if you grapple something that something is allowed to maul you on its next turn. Whether it's a single attack maul, full attack maul, full attack minus a limb maul, it doesn't matter. Grabbing something that can maul you will most likely end with it mauling you.
Yes, by rules, that's so. By rules, also, the bear who is being grappled by a stronger foe (let's say, a dragon), can attack the dragon in a full round action, without any hindrance (well, a -2 attack penalty, which is really nothing, as the dragon has a -4 to Dex as well, because it's considered grappled, so actually, for the bear there's no difference between attacking normally the dragon, or having several tons of a reptilian creature holding him in a grab, even maybe in his jaws). I understand that those are the rules. They are very clear.
My point, however, is that the rules are pretty bad in this specific situation when they try to model both reality (like the bears fighting other bears, and trying to hold a grapple), and fiction(with several characters, like Tarzan, Conan and Samson, grappling lions. I can give you pictures, like the one with 2 bears, if you want) And your example does nothing to counter my point.
|
The one with the upper hand does less damage but when the grappled opponent falls for the trap of attacking instead of escaping your upper hand has increased and you go for the pin the next round and then you are the only one who can do damage.
Bear1 and Bear2 are fighting.
Round 1:
Bear1 attacks and grabs bear2.
Bear2 takes all of its attacks instead of breaking free and running.
Round 2:
Bear2 feels Bad Ass from all the damage it did.
Bear1 pins bear2 with the nifty +5 it got from bear2 making attacks.
Bear2 pleads for its life.
Round 3:
Bear1 does whatever it wants.
This is Tarzan vs a Lion
This is Conan, vs a tiger
This is Heracles vs a lion
This is Samson, vs a Lion
All those are grappling the animal. And in all cases, it looks like the grappled animal should have, dunno, *some* kind of penalty to attack back. That's the reason why they grapple to begin with.
Same goes with this t-rex grappling a velociraptor Maybe it's just me, but I'd dare to say that the velociraptor in his jaws, *should* have some kind of hindrance to attack him, compared to the velociraptor who is roaming free on his back. It really *seems* like it's somehow more difficult, doesn't it?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I’ve seen a lot of doubt about the “one limb restricted” stuff lately. It would be nice to know if you officially lose the use of a “hand” while being grappled or just can’t use two-handed weapons.
Anyhow, I think that whether grapple is a good option for bears, or more importantly owlbears, probably depends on whether the DM rules that you need to take the “Pin” action round after round while maintaining the grapple to maintain a pin. If so then keeping a foe pinned completely robs most creatures without Constrict of their offensive potential. If not then getting grappled by an owlbear goes from a situation where it does damage to you once per round and you slaughter it with full attacks to one where you’re pinned doing nothing but struggling to get out while an owlbear tears you apart. I've seen many situations in play where this would have made a huge difference in how fights played out.
Based on observations over time I’d say that it seems like most folks on the boards feel that the latter situation is RAW+RAI. I think RAW is vague and wonder what RAI might be. Every table I’ve played at required the pin to be maintained each round, but since I’m the resident “grappling expert” I could be having undue influence over that (which is kind of counterproductive since some of my PCs specialize in grappling). Anyhow, if monsters can maintain a pin while using the action to inflict damage it could be very dangerous for PCs who can’t afford a Ring of Freedom of Movement (an item which makes casters much closer to invincible)
@DuksisDarker - I’ve never heard before that attempting to break a grapple would provoke an AoO. That doesn’t sound correct to me. Could you provide any rules to support this?
@gustavo iglesias - I hate autocorrect when I’m trying to write in Spanish on an English phone too. I wonder if there’s an option to switch languages…
|
|
This is Tarzan vs a Lion
This is Conan, vs a tiger
This is Heracles vs a lion
This is Samson, vs a Lion
All those are grappling the animal. And in all cases, it looks like the grappled animal should have, dunno, *some* kind of penalty to attack back. That's the reason why they grapple to begin with.
Same goes with this t-rex grappling a velociraptor Maybe it's just me, but I'd dare to say that the velociraptor in his jaws, *should* have some kind of hindrance to attack him, compared to the velociraptor who is roaming free on his back. It really *seems* like it's somehow more difficult, doesn't it?
You left out Batman vs Bear
I'd say as far as Pathfinder goes the animals in your pictures basically have the pinned condition. The picture with Batman vs. the bear is what the initiated grapple position.
The one with the upper hand does less damage but when the grappled opponent falls for the trap of attacking instead of escaping your upper hand has increased and you go for the pin the next round and then you are the only one who can do damage.
Bear1 and Bear2 are fighting.
Round 1:
Bear1 attacks and grabs bear2.
Bear2 takes all of its attacks instead of breaking free and running.
Round 2:
Bear2 feels Bad Ass from all the damage it did.
Bear1 pins bear2 with the nifty +5 it got from bear2 making attacks.
Bear2 pleads for its life.
Round 3:
Bear1 does whatever it wants.
Not really. Bear 2 in round 1 has two options: try to leave, which is a grapple check, or try to do full attacks. If he does the later, in round 2 bear two has to do a grapple check to leave.
So let's suppose 2 options: in option 1, bear 2 succeed at getting free. In option 2, bear 2 fails its attempts to get free.
So we have:
Round 1,
bears attack and grabs
Bears full attack, doing 3x damage (which may or may not kill the bear 1)
Round 2
Bears 1 pins
Bears 2 get free.
At the end of round 2, the bear 2 has done 3x damage, and is free. Bear 1 has done 1x damage.
Let's suppose that the bear 2 choose to get free, instead of doing full attack.
Round 1
Bars 1 attack + grab
Bears 2 get free
Round 2
Bear 1 full attack and grab with the last attack
Bear 2 gets free.
At the end of round 2, the bear 2 has done 0 damage, and bear 1 has done 4x damage. It doesn't look like doing full attack is a bad option for bear 2 in this case, does it?
Similar happens with the bear that fails his attempts.
Round 1
Bear 1 attack and grab
Bear 2 does full attack, 3x damage.
Round 2,
bear 1 pin
Bear 2, attempt to get free, and fail
In case the bear try to get free, it would be:
Round 1
Bear 1 attack and grab
Bear 2 attempts to get free, and fail
Bear 1 pin
Bear 2 attempt o get free, and fail.
Again, it looks like doing the full attack, is a better option for the bear. And it's so, because as being just "grappled" isn't really a problem (unless you are a caster), you should, by all means, ignore it and full attack as much as you can. ONCE you are pinned, then yes, you should try to get free. In any other case, it's worse for you, either if you success your attempts of if you fail them, because otherwise you are wasting an actionn to get free from a condition wich is not a problem at all yet.
I'd say as far as Pathfinder goes the animals in your pictures basically have the pinned condition. The picture with Batman vs. the bear is what the initiated grapple position.
It could be argued so, I suppose. The ones of Tarzan and Conan, doesn't really seem so, in my opinion. Those are basic grapples, they aren't pinning the creature at all.
Anyhow, the t-rex doesn't have a lot of options to grapple a velociraptor, besides the way it's shown in the picture I posted. And I still feel the velociraptor in his jaws should have *some* kind of penalty against him, compared to the velociraptor in his back.
Another picture of tarzan grappling a lion, and actually using the option to "do damage with a 1h weapon". Also feels like the lion should have some kind of problem to hit back. Much more than Tarzan has to hit him. I don't think that's a pin, as the lion is even moving.
I think that picture, and the others I linked, are much closer to thisgrapple than they are to this pin. As I see it, a pin is "omg, I'm totally screwed". A grapple is "someone has an upper hand, but it's not over yet as the other guy can still do things". Those pictures above, are in the later case and not the former, in my opinion.
I think something so easy as not counting the PC winning the grapple as "grappled", would work. The one losing would have -2 to attack and -2 to AC/CMD, basically. It's not a *huge* thing, but it's something.
I don't have a grapple focused build on me right now (Because I don't like that play style, and I'm bad at making them), but if someone impartial (Not you gustavo) feels like making one then we can do some comparisons and simulations.
I don't have a grapple focused build on me right now (Because I don't like that play style, and I'm bad at making them), but if someone impartial (Not you gustavo) feels like making one then we can do some comparisons and simulations.
To show what? That a propperly built tetori monk is a beast at grappling?
I can tell you the result of that comparison right now: he is.How is that related to my point? How does it help to "solve" the problem that it is that a bear, fighting another bear, or a lion fighting other lion, should never try to grapple the other bear (as they do in real life), because the grappled condition actually harms the guy doing it? How does it helps to solve the paradox that the velociraptor being hold in the T-rex jaws in the picture above isn't really having any disadventage for being there? Unless we are proposing giving levels in tetori monk to bears, lions, and other creatures with grapple, it's totally unrelated.
Oh, that is your problem? I thought you were trying to say it was underpowered in general for players. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I'm going to say that the game isn't perfectly accurate and unless your druid is shapeshifting into a bear and fighting other bears you probably don't have to worry about it. You could try asking the home-brew section for an improvement or alternate system.
In fact, I think it should be more *punishing* in general for regular, non-wrestling specialist PC, if anything. Any change to how the basic grapples work, is going to affect most PC in the reciving end of the stick.
A shapeshifting druid built to grapple is actually pretty good at it, like monks, brawlers and other classes that spend resources at being good with grappling. The druid's bear companion is not, however. Nor the bear summons, or the dire bear the PC face in the AP. Or the other gazillion creatures that have grab, but not constrict.
This is Tarzan vs a Lion
This is Conan, vs a tiger
This is Heracles vs a lion
This is Samson, vs a Lion
All those are grappling the animal. And in all cases, it looks like the grappled animal should have, dunno, *some* kind of penalty to attack back. That's the reason why they grapple to begin with.
Same goes with this t-rex grappling a velociraptor Maybe it's just me, but I'd dare to say that the velociraptor in his jaws, *should* have some kind of hindrance to attack him, compared to the velociraptor who is roaming free on his back. It really *seems* like it's somehow more difficult, doesn't it?
OK, Gustavo, let's take this another way.
What would you WANT grapple to do?
Man vs. lion: man hits lion with an axe and then lion kills him, but man grapples lion, man wins easily, lion dies.
T-Rex vs. anything: One bite, grab, fight is over. No chance.
Octopus vs. anything: Octopus grabs and strangles enemy, enemy dies.
Bear vs. man: Bear grabs man, man dies, bear isn't hurt.
Bear vs. T-Rex: Bear grabs T-Rex, T-rex dies, bear isn't hurt.
Where do we draw the line on ludicrous?
Grapple, and as you put it, "base grapple", is SUPPOSED to be a basic maneuver that minimally works. Then you start improving it with feats and class abilities (or for bears, etc., with Universal Monster Abilities), until you have built something useful.
Let me give you another example of something that is worthless. Unarmed combat. A 10th level fighter might lose to an orc and will probably lose to an ogre if he insists on fighting with his bare fists (unarmed strikes, not grappling, just punching), without having any feats or other abilities to improve his unarmed strikes. Fighter loses. Why? Because unarmed striking is useless without improving it with beneficial levels, feats, abilities, and items.
Let me give you another example of something that is worthless. Hitting stuff with a sword. Oh, sure, mook vs. mook, a sword is dangerous. But try giving a level 1 fighter a sword and then tell him to kill a T-Rex. Heck, try telling him to kill a Grizzly Bear. Swordsman loses. Why? Because swords are useless without improving them with beneficial levels, feats, abilities, and items.
Let me give you another example of something that is worthless. Spellcasting. Yeah, again, a noob caster can kill your average orc easily enough, but send that spellcaster against a T-Rex and he'll get devoured easily enough. Why? Because spellcasting is useless without improving it with beneficial levels, feats, abilities, and items.
Do I need to go on?
Grappling is the same way. At its basic level, it's a just a combat maneuver that might have some corner case uses from time to time. But, improve it with beneficial levels, feats, abilities, and items and it becomes useful.
That's working exactly as designed. Except maybe for the stupid grab/release yo-yo. But the rest is working the way it should.
grappling is another options an options are always useful.
In PFS I have saved players lives/changed the tides of battle using reposition/trip/sunder/grapple/overrun/bullrush with character that have not specialization in these maneuvers
Not all options are going to viable all the time. Knowing what they are and the threats they represent is a valuable asset.
Not knowing what is available to you is a threat.
How does it help to "solve" the problem that it is that a bear, fighting another bear, should never try to grapple the other bear (as they do in real life), because the grappled condition actually harms the guy doing it?
Except it doesn't. He can full attack and grab, and then release and full-attack and grab again on his next round.
What would you WANT grapple to do?
Man vs. lion: man hits lion with an axe and then lion kills him, but man grapples lion, man wins easily, lion dies.
T-Rex vs. anything: One bite, grab, fight is over. No chance.
Octopus vs. anything: Octopus grabs and strangles enemy, enemy dies.
Bear vs. man: Bear grabs man, man dies, bear isn't hurt.
Bear vs. T-Rex: Bear grabs T-Rex, T-rex dies, bear isn't hurt.Where do we draw the line on ludicrous?
Maybe give the grapple victim bigger penalties to hit than the AC penalty of the grapple-initiator?
See, and I have a big problem with all of those examples. They're all pinned, since the animal is literally incapable of reaching the grappler.
Whereas the second Tarzan example could be Pathfinder grappling. You see, the lion is the one moving, so it must be in control of the grapple (can't move unless you are). Tarzan is, instead of grappling back, attacking with a one-handed weapon. But Tarzan isn't the grappler. And the lion is an idiot.
I'm not sure how you can post that picture of the pin and not see it in every other picture you posted. The only difference is that none of the animals have arms that can bend backwards, so you don't need to control their forelimbs to neutralize them.
I loled with the lion being the one winning the grapple in the second picture. Maybe the devs share your vision about what is to be "winning a grapple" and that's why winning grapples suck. In Pathfinder when you win a grapple, you ley the loser be at your back and grabbing you, that's why he can full round and you can't. Makes sense now.
All those animals can use the claws to attack a third enemy. Something that a grappled creature can do, while a pinned one can't. The pinned wrestler in the picture, however, can't attack a third person, because he is pinned. All animals in those pictures CAN attack the grappler (clawing the grappler arm. If you have ever seen a cat scratching his neck, you'll have a mental picture of how). But that would be a worse tactic than attacking freely, as thus they'll have a penalty. You know, as any grapplED creature should, unlike a grapplING creature. Which is the problem veré, the rule doesn't distinguish between grappled and grappling, except to make things WORSE for the one winning.
This is Tarzan vs a Lion
This is Conan, vs a tiger
This is Heracles vs a lion
This is Samson, vs a Lion
All those are grappling the animal. And in all cases, it looks like the grappled animal should have, dunno, *some* kind of penalty to attack back. That's the reason why they grapple to begin with.
Same goes with this t-rex grappling a velociraptor Maybe it's just me, but I'd dare to say that the velociraptor in his jaws, *should* have some kind of hindrance to attack him, compared to the velociraptor who is roaming free on his back. It really *seems* like it's somehow more difficult, doesn't it?
OK, Gustavo, let's take this another way.
What would you WANT grapple to do?
I already hinted it. I think the penslty (attack and DEX) should apply only to the grappled creature, and/or the grappled creature should have, at the every least, the same penalty than the one with the upper hand.
That is: either the grappler should be able to attack full round if they win the grapple check, or the grappled creature should need a standard action to attack. Regardless of feats, the dragon who tries and manages to grapple another dragon, shouldn't be "rewarded" with doing only bite damage while the grappled one does 2 claws, 1 bite, 2 wings and 1 tail strike. It's dumb. Yes, he hasn't invested a lot in the skill to grapple, but he still managed to do it.Current grapple rules are akin to trio maneuver making the sttacker prone as well. Except the attacker can't attack full round while prone
But that would be a worse tactic than attacking freely, as they'll have a malus. You know, as any grapplED creature should, unlike a grapplING creature.
Actually, a "grapplING creature", at least a humanoid one, and maybe others too, should probably have a "malus" when they are grapplING, too. It's not easy. On my feet, I have lots of attacks that matter. I might even break bones (jaws, noses perhaps). Grappling, I lose much of that. Much of the force I get from winding up and swinging is lost when my windup is non-existent and my swing is 9 inches.
And no, I wouldn't want to grapple belly-to-belly with a tiger. I would literally become dead meat in two seconds flat. But maybe on a tiger's back with a great grapple hold I just might live for a few extra moments before I get tired and then become dead meat. But, in that situation, if I had a sword in my hand, and I let go of my grapple hold to try to hack at the tiger, I would be thrown off and immediately become dead meat - in other words, I would have a sever "malus" as I cling for dear life and find it nearly impossible to make any attacks at all.
Maybe some Jiu-Jitsu master could show me how to do it better. But then, that master has a whole lotta training under his black belt. You know, kinda like how a great grappler in Pathfinder has a lot of training (e.g. feats and class abilities) under his belt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't want to grapple a tiger either. But I'm a commoner 1/expert 1 with str 9, not a heroica character able to kill dragons, survive poison, falling 200', and thanks to my Magic belt, actually stronger than the tiger. Nor a bear. I would FAIL the CMB check and NEVER gain the upper hand against the tiger, unlike Tsrzsn, Conan, Samson, or a bear.
EDIT: also, while it's true that grappling your windup is nonexistant, it is also true when I al the One grappling you. Which currently, isn't the case in PF. You stop having wind up and attack options only when YOU grab me, not when I grab YOU
Regardless of feats, the dragon who tries and manages to grapple another dragon, shouldn't be "rewarded" with doing only bite damage while the grappled one does 2 claws, 1 bite, 2 wings and 1 tail strike. It's dumb. Yes, he hasn't invested a lot in the skill to grapple, but he still managed to do it.
Maybe grapple isn't a good thing for a dragon, since the dragon has so many attack forms. In fact, I'm sure it's a terrible idea for a dragon. It's not like when a guy with a sword and one single attack decides to give up that one single attack in favor of trying a grapple. Dragons are GREAT at multi-attacking so why use them as an example of a creature giving up what it is GREAT at to do something it is not at all great, or even good, or even especially average, at doing?
Your example is like saying "I think a policeman in a gunfight with some robbers across the street should be able to drop his gun, draw a night-stick (a club) and charge across the street to engage the robbers in melee, and then I think the robbers should have to be equally stupid and drop their guns and go fight the policeman in melee."
That makes no sense, of course, but neither does a dragon choosing to grapple.
You could have hardly picked a worse example. If you could make grappling so freaking awesome that a dragon could choose to do it, then what happens when a creature really built for it uses grapple?
Answer: It insta-wins all the time.
Nobody wants that. I'm sure you don't either, right?
Dragons have grab.
And again, the elephant in the room you refuse to see in your defense of the status quo: if being involved in a grapple is so bad for a dragon, then the grapplED dragon should be equally hindered, or more. Which is not currently the case
A final thought for you, Gustavo.
You seem to be forgetting that this is not a game where we typically have one-on-one death matches.
OK, so a bear grabs a bear and maybe is worse off for it. No big deal.
But what about when a bear grabs the PC rogue and then, while it is distracted and somewhat immobile (holding the rogue), the PC barbarian whacks away at it, the PC cleric smites it with his Spiritual weapon, and the PC wizard blasts it? And, the rogue is slicing open the bear's belly at the same time.
Not much of a fair fight.
But that's pretty much what this game is, give or take.
Grapple, including the yo-yo grab/release tactic, is better suited to this kind of fight than to two bears grappling in the woods.
Modify grapple too much, and it won't matter a whole lot when a bear grabs the PC rogue, but it will absolutely CRIPPLE the dragon when the PC tetori monk grapples it. Heck, it already does. Don't make it worse (for the dragon) because that kind of encounter already trivializes what should be a great and fun monster into yeat another boring rendition of "I grab the dragon and pin it on my round and the barbarian uses a coup de grace to kill it on his round. How much XP do we get?"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think people get used to a status quo, and then tend to defend it per se, as if any critique is trying to defy reality. It's not like PF rules are perfect, or the only ones that exist. In 3.5, you had a -4 to attack with your 1 handed weapon or natural attack against the grappler. Something so easy as that, makes it having a LOT more sense and representa better both reality and stablished genre fiction. PF is better in general than 3.5, but that doesn't mean *every* change is for the better.
Hm.. Grapple can be useful though...
My Huge sized Snake Animal Companion agrees (Hunter9/Mammoth Rider1 (my GM ruled that a Large Snake is a suitable mount for a Gnome)). Getting the Grapple feats and the Contricting feat chain together with a crit fishing Gnome with Butterfly Sting gets really funny...
Hm.. Grapple can be useful though...
My Huge sized Snake Animal Companion agrees (Hunter9/Mammoth Rider1 (my GM ruled that a Large Snake is a suitable mount for a Gnome)). Getting the Grapple feats and the Contricting feat chain together with a crit fishing Gnome with Butterfly Sting gets really funny...
For what it's worth, the OP has indicated that things like Constrict are a different matter. We are more talking about grappling as an option for a character instead of a specialization. If you take the feats for it or have multiple special abilities to boost it (eg grab+constrict)then yeah, it does good things. If you don't, then you should probably forget about it unless you are trying to hug squishy full-casters (and get past their mirror images+blur+flying...somehow).
Grappling is indeed "Wrong" and a Paladin will fall if he attempts one. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you are saying the rules don't model reality well. Are you asking for new rules or just complaining? It'll help if they decide to move the thread (definitely if you're soliciting houserules).
you should try reading what I wrote
that's surprising, seen the above quoteThat being said, I completely disagree with most of what you said.
Grappling is an abstraction, and for good reason.
sure it is. Like the rest of combate, starting with the hit points. Nobody asks to change that, however.
a bunch of grappling examples
Yeah. And in... NONE of those examples, the person GRAPPLING is in a worse place than the person BEING GRAPPLED. Grapple is the only tactic that impose a harder condition in the one who SUCCEED than in the one who LOSES. When you trip, the one who succeeded at tripping don't get prone and limited to standard actions.
If you want it to be more "realistic" you need need to include some kind of location-based grappling, where you grapple specific limbs or body parts that have different effects.
no, you don't. You only need to keep it abstract, but impose a harder penalty in the LOSER instead of the WINNER.
Also, you really don't want to bring up 3.5. Because it let you do what you're railing against, but much worse
Fortunately we are intelligent animals with rational brains (or we should be). We can do things like take the things that work and reject the ones that don't. Pathfinder devs could copy/adapt the -4 to attacks rule, without copying the rest, or discarding the whole CMB rules. Unless they are somehow under a geas that forces them to take the whole 3.5 ruleset to copy a 1 sentence long rule in the grappling section.
I think people get used to a status quo, and then tend to defend it per se, as if any critique is trying to defy reality. It's not like PF rules are perfect, or the only ones that exist. In 3.5, you had a -4 to attack with your 1 handed weapon or natural attack against the grappler. Something so easy as that, makes it having a LOT more sense and representa better both reality and stablished genre fiction. PF is better in general than 3.5, but that doesn't mean *every* change is for the better.
Nothing I have said is based on any "status quo" nostalgia. And I totally agree that Pathfinder's rules are not perfect. No game is (except the one I designed which, I'll admit, is only perfect for me).
I feel you use your dismissive status-quo attitude to justify ignoring rational posts while you keep charging ahead, championing your pet cause without slowing down to consider the ramifications.
There, now we've both been dismissive. It turns out to be counter-productive to having a good discussion, so maybe we should both stop.
I will never champion a rule because of "status quo" or because I'm unable to alter my "reality" of whatever the current rules say.
But I will always, fully, champion a rule that is balanced as a game mechanic, and I will, always, try to help people who want to wreck that balance to gain a better understanding of the balance they're trying to wreck.
So, in that vein, if you're going to consider house rules to make grappling more punitive to the victim of it, then consider the implications of PC death due to grappling. Of the last dozen or so times I've seen a PC die at my table, at least a third of them were because of grappling in its current state. Making grappling even more deadly will result in more PC deaths. Making "base" grappling more powerful and then leaving all the feats/abilities/items that pile on extra power and usefulness just means that the base grapplers are a bigger threat and the improved grapplers are a game-breaking threat. And making grappling more beneficial for PCs to use it in encounters means that dedicated grapple builds will destroy encounters.
You're talking about a cold-war style escalation of grappling where the players build better and better grapplers to "win" and the GM builds better and better grapplers to also "win" and both sides create a mutually-assure-destruction style of play revolving around super-powered grappling.
Am I over-stating it? Yes (this time) because I've said it before (in this thread) in less dramatic fashion to no effect.
But the truth of it, while somewhat toned down from the drama of this post, is still real: making grappling more deadly at its basic, least-common-denominator level, will simply turn it from one combat option to THE BEST combat option, and optimized grapplers WILL rule the battlefield. PCs will die. Encounters will be unbalanced when grappling is used.
That's the bottom line.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry if I sounded dismissive, DM Blake. You have actually raised good points through the thread.
Besides that, I disagree with your premise. Something like giving the base grapple rule a -4 to attack to the grappled PC, doesn't change dramatically the effect of a high level tetori character with constriction and ability to grapple as swift. The problem with those tetoris id not their AC, having 4 more wouldn't break anything. But it'll help a lot for the sad, poor "I only have grab" creatures like the bear, who now have a reason to roll grapple when they hit. Currently they don't, except maybe in the last attack of the full round, IF nobody else threaten them. Besides grappling casters, that is.
That the best tactical option for a creature with grab who already has a hold on its prey (like a bear) is "I release as free action to full attack" neans that something in the rule is wrong, in my ooinion
That the best tsctical option for a creature with grab who already has a hold on it's pray (like a bear) is "I release as free action to full attack" neans that something in the rule is wrong, in my ooinion
On that we agree.
We just don't seem to agree that "fixing" it will make the game better. I submit that it would actually make it worse.
For house rules:
Maybe a very small fix that doesn't hurt/punish/limit the victim of the grapple any more than he already is. Perhaps the fix might be to allow a new option that can be applied after successfully maintaining a grapple (in addition to the normal move, damage, or pin options). The new option would allow the grappler to make a full attack without releasing the grapple and with all the normal grapple limitations applied (only use one hand so no greatsword full-attacks, penalty to the attack rolls, etc.)
Now when your bear grapples the other bear, they can both full-attack each other (although I still submit that a claw/claw/bite full attack requires two hands and cannot be used in a grapple, so they must simply do claw/bite attacks, but that applies equally to both bears). In this case, the grappler gets no benefit from grappling but he also confers no advantage to his opponent - in short, there would be very little reason to do this other than the REAL reason that animals do it: to keep their dinner from running away.
I think options that make the leading grappled more dangerous REALLY make tetoris and focused grapplers too powerful, as they'd do a ton of damage with Constrict. That's why I suggested the penalty to the grappled, a small one that don't disable it, but give the bear a reason to hold the grapple
I think options that make the leading grappled more dangerous REALLY make tetoris and focused grapplers too powerful, as they'd do a ton of damage with Constrict. That's why I suggested the penalty to the grappled, a small one that don't disable it, but give the bear a reason to hold the grapple
Just treat Constrict as a separate option for a successful grapple. Your tetoris must decide, after a successful grapple check, do I constrict, or do I full attack, or do I do something else?
With rake or constrict your damage options change greatly. Additionally, if you have superior grapple abilities but cannot keep up with your opponent's damage, you can choose to pin them so that you can attack with impunity.You can attack while pinned. It specifically calls out not being able to move, or cast spells, but full attacks aren't mentioned at all.
Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack.
Uhh, no.
Pinned: A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions. A pinned creature cannot move and is denied its Dexterity bonus. A pinned character also takes an additional –4 penalty to his Armor Class. A pinned creature is limited in the actions that it can take. A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check. A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component. A pinned 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. Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack.
(1)"tightly bound and can take few actions"
(2) "A pinned creature is limited in the actions that it can take."The listed actions are inclusive: cannot move, can attempt to free itself through combat manuever (break grapple) or escape artist, can take verbal or mental actions, cannot cast spells with S or M components. Attacking is not possible because you are pinned; that is why it is not listed as an option.
Pinned means pinned, not grappled ...
But the truth of it, while somewhat toned down from the drama of this post, is still real: making grappling more deadly at its basic, least-common-denominator level, will simply turn it from one combat option to THE BEST combat option, and optimized grapplers WILL rule the battlefield. PCs will die. Encounters will be unbalanced when grappling is used.The problem there is the high end, not the low. Grapplers should rule the battlefield because everyone grapples. There are throws and grapples in longsword manuals. There's grappling in poleaxe and halberd manuals. There's grappling in Asian martial arts. There isn't floor-work, but that's not what PF grappling represents anyways. If it did it would also use the prone condition.
Grappling was probably part of basic martial training as a way for kids to learn to fight without as much risk of concussions as hitting each other with sticks straight away. It pretty clearly was in Greece and Rome.
While this is historically true, it's not mechanically viable to the game. Turn Pathfinder grappling into real-life grappling and use it, mechanically, as heavily in pathfinder combat as in real life combat and everybody wins by grappling or loses by being grappled in every fight. We might as well not even bring swords to the combat. In fact, forget melee weapons entirely.
That becomes, obviously, a drastic rebalancing of combat and equipment and classes and...
Yuck.
Tying someone in knots in six seconds is the problem, not being able to do a wrist hold to keep someone from using their sword while you knock them in the head with your pommel or use a poleaxe shaft to hold them down while you pull out your misericorde stab them in the arm pit because they're wearing armor everywhere else.
Most of that is implicit in the 5-second combat round. All the miniscule grabbing and holding and "checking" that goes on in real-world combat is happening, it's just beneath the radar.
One GM might say "The orc misses you." followed by the player saying "I hit the orc." But a more theatrical group might say "The orc swings his axe but you step in closer and grab his wrist and he's unable to land the blow" and the player says "I twist his wrist so he lowers his guard and drive my longsword into his face."
This is the same set of rolls and same set of game mechanics (a missed attack by the orc and a hit by the PC), but one is just more theatrical than the other.
As for switching weapons mid-combat to use a misericorde, well, the game just doesn't handle that very well at all (two weapon fighting works poorly when your poleaxe is a 2H weapon in the first place), but if the guy IS using rules-legal TWF style with a 1H weapon and a misericorde, he could certainly put some theatrical fluff behind your scenario there, too.
But note that this theatrical fluff doesn't impart the Grappled condition to the enemy, nor any other penalties, so it's just descriptive text below the radar. Actually grappling the enemy and applying the condition is a whole separate combat maneuver ruleset that isn't really what your post was talking about and, it turns out, is a TERRIBLE idea on a battlefield - while you're grappling your guy, his buddy is killing you. But it might be an excellent idea in one-on-one combat in a cage with a referee, while it's a conditionally reasonable idea in a one-on-one fight in a back alley somewhere - you better have good training for this one, especially if your opponent has a sword.
There's also the fact that when you grapple something, you can drag it over to a spiked pit or lava pool and throw it in.
Problem with real world fencing techniwues is that swordmasters didn't fight vs t-rexes and dragons.
Grapple rules should make sense with in the game World. The problem is that currently it's not the case, as currently owlbears release their preys to full attack, and they shouldn't in game lore
Advebturers with animal companions have fights between animals and humanoids (ussually orcs) all the time, though.
I wouldn't mind being able to emulate an MMA "ground and pound" approach in Pathfinder, but Pathfinder isn't really a combat sports simulation. Giving the creature controlling the grapple some bonuses to attack the grappled creature sounds sensible, and luckily this already happens since you get a +5 to maintain the grapple in subsequent rounds.
@Atarlost - My grappling PC would like to play in a game where humanoid foes are as common as you're describing. We fight incorporeal creatures, trees, Gargantuan fish, the Froghemoth, a Colossal mantis, etc at least as much as humanoids.
With rake or constrict your damage options change greatly. Additionally, if you have superior grapple abilities but cannot keep up with your opponent's damage, you can choose to pin them so that you can attack with impunity.You can attack while pinned. It specifically calls out not being able to move, or cast spells, but full attacks aren't mentioned at all.
Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack.Uhh, no.
Pinned: A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions. A pinned creature cannot move and is denied its Dexterity bonus. A pinned character also takes an additional –4 penalty to his Armor Class. A pinned creature is limited in the actions that it can take. A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check. A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component. A pinned 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. Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack.(1)"tightly bound and can take few actions"
(2) "A pinned creature is limited in the actions that it can take."The listed actions are inclusive: cannot move, can attempt to free itself through combat manuever (break grapple) or escape artist, can take verbal or mental actions, cannot cast spells with S or M components. Attacking is not possible because you are pinned; that is why it is not listed as an option.
Pinned means pinned, not grappled ...
Thank you for addressing that post... Because I was about to of no one else did. You absolutely cannot attack while pinned. Despite the available actions while Pinned bring explicitly spelled out in the condition itself... If you could still be attacked while pinning someone, why the heck would anyone even use such an absurd option?
I wouldn't mind being able to emulate an MMA "ground and pound" approach in Pathfinder, but Pathfinder isn't really a combat sports simulation. Giving the creature controlling the grapple some bonuses to attack the grappled creature sounds sensible, and luckily this already happens since you get a +5 to maintain the grapple in subsequent rounds.
Yeah.
Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is awesome in a cage with a referee and rules and when fighting a single opponent following those same rules.
Trying it against a guy in a back alley, when he has a knife and he's just as well trained as you are (e.g. a CR-appropriate encounter) would be nearly suicidal. Trying it on a battlefield surrounded by armed enemies will just get you killed, guaranteed, while you wait for your opponent to tap out - probably long before he taps. Trying it against an armed opponent in a battlefield in an abstract game system designed to win by depriving enemies of mountains of HP is not only impractical and suicidal, it's flat out nonsensical.
And yet, there are rules that let it happen, if you specialize and optimize for it.
Which is probably exactly how it should be. In a game.
As a martial artist myself, I'd dare to say that when facing a knife, you should grapple the knife arm as soon as you can. But, of course, in real life grappled knives can't attack you full round.
I don't think grapple rules should be so complex and detailed as to model real life. But they should be good enough than a owlbear doesn't release you because mantaining the grapple sucks unless you are a tetori constrincting monstrosity
As a martial artist myself, I'd dare to say that when facing a knife, you should grapple the knife arm as soon as you can. But, of course, in real life grappled knives can't attack you full round.
I don't think grapple rules should be so complex and detailed as to model real life. But they should be good enough than a owlbear doesn't release you because mantaining the grapple sucks unless you are a tetori constrincting monstrosity
I must have taken a different martial art than you did.
I was taught specifically NOT to grapple the arm of an opponent wielding a sharp weapon, but simply to avoid the attack, check the weapon (usually an open hand against his arm, not grabbing, just gaining control and keeping it away from danger), then counter attack, usually to disable the person (e.g. striking his temple nerve cluster) or disable his arm (e.g. a strike to his bicep nerve cluster) - but never with gappling (too easy to grab a little wrong and get cut, or he pulls his arm back and the arm, hand, and then knife slip right through your fingers, cutting you in the process, of course).
And this instruction came from my Jiu-Jitsu sensei.
But none of that is relevant to our abstract Pathfinder combat system.