I've got a comic on the subject over here, but here's the the example that got me thinking:
In D&D 5e, the grapple rules say that “the target of your grapple must be no more than one size large than you.” In Pathfinder, there are several combat maneuvers that include similar “no more than one size category larger than you” language. You can’t push, trip, or overrun very large creatures. However, that language is conspicuously absent from Pathfinder’s grapple rules. That means you can’t push a dragon into a pit, but you are allowed to suplex Smaug to your hear’s content.
In terms of genre and content, these are very similar games. They’ve got the same heroes, monsters, epic quests, and magic items. They are forking branches of the same Gygaxian tree. Yet this very basic thing is explicitly allowed in one and disallowed in another. Whether or not you think it makes sense for Thursh the barbarian to wrestle an elephant depends on your individual conception of fantasy. However, whether or not you’re technically correct depends on the system, not the setting.
The easy solution is to say “leave it to the GM’s discretion.” From a designer’s standpoint, however, I’m less sure. Do you make it policy to avoid “you can’t do the thing” type rules, or is that a necessary part of a sensible system?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Moreover, if the creature isn't adjacent to you when the grapple is initiated, the initiator moves the target to an adjacent square in PF - not necessarily the nearest one. Grapple can thus be used to reposition enemies when you have reach.
The lack of a size restriction on grapple seems very strange to me. I once GMed a scenario where a tiny sized kitsune in fox form grappled a large sized efreeti to death. The efreeti couldn't move, cast spells, or in any way escape the grapple because of numbers, but we're talkin' about an 8x size multiplier here, roughly. I think a rational person would find it ridiculous, to say the least, if a kitten grappled a person into an immobile state through anything but cuteness.
The size restrictions on other maneuvers are a bit weird to me, particularly trip, but that has its own issues to contend with based on my experience due to Ki Throw. Even so, with the scaling of CMD from size and strength, some creatures have unreasonably high numbers to try to use maneuvers on as it is.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well if you look at it, other maneuvers rely on pure physical strength one to one.
Grapple, however, there is a little thing called leverage. Joints can be pushed into places that are extremely painful to even move a smidge. It's not about pure strength by this time, it's about knowing where to hold and how to twist and then use the other person's strength against them.
Also, grappling isn't really a suplex. Grappling is what jiu jitsu looks like, mostly. Although there are some important differences.
Personally I actually disagree with Pathfinder rules not being limited by size on grapple, but those are the rules.
One can argue particular rules, about whether they are good at modeling a particular genre, as well as exactly what that genre should be (guns in my fantasy as an example) but the main point of this post, whether their should be rules at all seems a little bizarre to me.
We are talking about a role-playing game.
Sure, the role-playing part has a lot in common with 'let's pretend' where there are no rules and pretty much you can do what your imagination desires (the only 'rule' being you have to keep within the general consensus of those you are playing with, or they will likely stop playing.)
The game part though implies rules. You can imagine your King giving an inspiring speech to the Queen about to embark in ferocious battle, and exhort to fight to the bitter end, but it won't have any effect at all on your chess play. The rules say what can and can't happen, and what you imagine is totally irrelevant to them.
A role-playing game it an attempt to give the structure of a game to 'let's pretend' and that structure means that rules limit what imagination can accomplish. Some RPGs are stricter and some are looser, and people with prefer different ones, but the basic concept that some sort of rules are necessary to make it a game instead of just 'let's pretend' is inherent in the term.
|
I'm definitely a rulings over rules GM. Sure there are times the rules say you can, but if I feel like that wasn't intended, or don't want to allow it, I wont.
I understand that from a designers point of view that probably isnt helpful outside of playtesting. To really determine the value you need to have context around what the rules are trying to achieve. For a casual game that might be to simply provide fun, in a simulation game, then the fun will be determined by something more austere.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
'Ere now! Wot's all this then?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
'Ere now! Wot's all this then?
Nothing officer! Honest!
Grapple != Pin. You might realistically be able to grapple an elephant (just hold on tight) though pinning it is obviously a different matter. Not that PF makes a distinction here, AFAIK.
I get what your getting at, but popular consensus is that magic is always more powerful than physical force. So limiting physical actions, in any way, is really an attack on fighters, monks, and brawlers. Yeah I understand that watching a 10 year old child wrestle a bull elephant to the ground is a bit unrealistic, but if you can reload a black powder gun 5 times in 6 seconds, why bother limiting anything by such an antiquated notion as common sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pressure points, man.
So THIS is why my butterfly familiar can bodyslam kaiju!
Pressure points, man.So THIS is why my butterfly familiar can bodyslam kaiju!
This is exactly what I'm getting at. There comes a point when what really matters is whether or not you can justify an action to a GM. Written another way the question becomes, "When should a game system provide a GM with guidance and when should it leave rules calls to their discretion?"
|
|
This is exactly what I'm getting at. There comes a point when what really matters is whether or not you can justify an action to a GM. Written another way the question becomes, "When should a game system provide a GM with guidance and when should it leave rules calls to their discretion?"Pressure points, man.So THIS is why my butterfly familiar can bodyslam kaiju!
That would be a BULL RUSH.
What your Butterfly Familiar did was find the right spot on the creature's body, and use its proboscis or something else to stimulate a nerve and cause convulsions in a way that are grapple-like.
DUH!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your butterfly has the minimum +51 CMB to beat the CMD 71 of the most grapple-able Kaiju, I'll buy it.
Personally, in almost all cases, I'm much happier with large penalties than with flat "You can't do that" rules.
Pathfinder characters get to superhuman levels. Relying on our common sense ideas and real world experience to determine what they can do doesn't really make sense.
Agreed. Rules are good, but I'd rather say that something has such a high DC it's effectively impossible to ordinary mortals, rather than say it's actually impossible.
|
Technically, that butterfly could roll a 20 VS the Kaiju or "Totally not Godzilla" could roll a Natural 1 and the Butterfly could pin him.
The Kaiju will almost certainly break free or win the grapple next round but a series of poor/good rolls could be quite the slapstick fight.
This is a low probability scenario but not out of the question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your butterfly has the minimum +51 CMB
Don't mess with Sparkles... Once she lands on your shoulder, it's all over!
Technically, that butterfly could roll a 20 VS the Kaiju or "Totally not Godzilla" could roll a Natural 1 and the Butterfly could pin him.
The Kaiju will almost certainly break free or win the grapple next round but a series of poor/good rolls could be quite the slapstick fight.
And now the Kaiju is too ashamed to show themselves at Kaiju mixers and they don't let him play in all the kaiju games. ;)
We limit the grapple reposition of an enemy looking at the max carrying capacity table.
We limit the grapple reposition of an enemy looking at the max carrying capacity table.
Could you expand? I'm not tracking how this works.
I assume he means if they want to reposition a creature with either grapple or the reposition maneuver said creature mush fall into the repositioners max load
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, great comics, thoroughly enjoyed them.
Pathfinder and D&D suffer sometimes from terminal specificness. Sometimes it's good to put rules on hold for some cinematics though.