Grappling issues [Archive] - Wizards Community

Grappling issues [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
darksilver
03-20-07, 12:54 PM I can't get over the feeling that grappling seems too powerful. It has now become a regular tactic for the party to always attack enemy spellcasters by grappling. Considering they have a wild shaped druid (dire ape form), it's a fair tactic. What bothers me is that the rest of the party then gang up on the hapless NPC by slashing and chopping at him while he is unable to do much in response. There seems to be nothing in the rules to prevent this, not even a suggestion that the combatants may accidentally strike their friend.

Does anyone else have issues with this state of affairs. It takes the excitement out of encounters for me. :confused:
Matthew77
03-20-07, 01:01 PM Grappling is simply the best way for a non-spell caster to deal with an opposing spell-caster.

In past editions, simply getting into threat range with a melee weapon would shut down spellcasting, but now that defensive casting is so easy, you need to take the extra step and leap onto the caster and hold him down.

I don't really see it as a problem, its a legitimate anti-caster tactic.

Spellcasters should be aware of their vulnerabilty and take steps to prevent it. The ultimate defense against grappling is freedom of movement.

Many other spells can cause damage to grapplers if you cast them ahead of time, such as Balor's Nimbus.

At low levels, use terrain to your advantage.. get up on a ledge or behind a wall so the grapplers can't reach you. Surround yourself with grunts that your opponents have to hack down before they can get to you.

Spell casters always have to worry about being grappled.. in the same way that Melee tanks always have to worry about being dominated or charmed :)
darksilver
03-20-07, 01:16 PM It's not the tactic itself that bothers me, but the situation where one PC grapples/pins the opponent and then just holds him while the remainder of the party attack with flails, chains, swords etc without fear of harming their ally. Missile weapons run a risk of harming an ally but not so for melee weapons - seems wrong to me, I just can't visualise it.

Obviously I could just create a house rule, but I just thought I'd put it to the community.
Matthew77
03-20-07, 01:31 PM I can usually see the realism in attacking into a Grapple with melee weapons.

If you picture it as one guy holding the other down, instead of both of them squirming around a lot, it makes more sense.

It does seem like a good candidate for a house rule though.
Maybe force a -4 penalty to the attack, just like shooting into a melee?

Rolling to see which target you hit tends to slow down combat and just be a general annoyance for players.
Leilond
03-20-07, 01:32 PM Simply design better your encounter
Never put a spellcaster without bodyguards. Think about a pair of thieves that sneak attack each enemy that try to grapple the caster. Think about a warrior/fighter that block the line to the caster.
And usually a spellcasters, the bosses always, start the fight with some buffing spells already casted (invisibility, freedom movement, blink, fly)
Smart casters never fall in the middle of a fight, but usually have one round (sometimes two) to cast defensive/buffing spell
If a wizard turn a dungeon corner and find a fighter 5' in front of him, the wizard deserve to die and can only hope to win initiative to cast fly and flee
olshanski_home
03-20-07, 02:54 PM Spellcasters should almost always be invisible, mirror imaged, flying, greased, or otherwise very hard to pin down. Having toadies in front of the spellcasters is also a necessity.

Dimension door is a must-have for 7th level spellcasters to escape a grapple.
Silent dimension door is nearly a must-have for 9th level spellcasters.

You should expect that any solo spellcaster is going to be grappled and put down as the first tactic.
Marcus Majarra
03-20-07, 04:57 PM There's another countertactic I found to be useful. And it was recurrent in some Legacy of the Green Regent scenarios: silent still dispel magic.
lastknightleft
03-20-07, 05:54 PM I gotta say grappling is not overpowered, in real life it would be the same way. If I get you in my grip, so that your hands aren't free will everyone around be able to kick the crap out of you? yes. now, if I bear hug you, you're in an even worse position right? the balance is that to do so, you probably took several free attacks on me while I was trying to get you in said hug
Senevri
03-21-07, 02:47 AM I can usually see the realism in attacking into a Grapple with melee weapons.

If you picture it as one guy holding the other down, instead of both of them squirming around a lot, it makes more sense.

It does seem like a good candidate for a house rule though.
Maybe force a -4 penalty to the attack, just like shooting into a melee?

Rolling to see which target you hit tends to slow down combat and just be a general annoyance for players.

You cannot see one holding a guy while the other punches? Clearly we haven't been watching the same movies.

Grappling doesn't mean they're rolling around in the ground. You can grapple while standing up.
Carn the Weak
03-21-07, 12:37 PM There's a new series of articles on Grappling on the site. However, I notice that they contradict themselves in a couple of places:

In Monsters and Grappling it says: "When using the “Damage Your Opponent” option, the creature deals unarmed strike damage appropriate to its size." So it doesn't use it's natural attack damage in a grappl eunless it uses the attack option at -4.

But right underneath that under improved grab it says: "Each successful grapple check the attacker makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. (This works just like making a grapple check to deal damage.)" Which can't be true since making a grapple check to deal damage deals non-lethal based on size, it has nothing to do with the attack that made the grab.

Under constrict it says: "If the creature later makes a grapple check to deal damage to a creature in its grasp, it deals damage from the natural weapon it uses in the attack (if any) and extra constriction damage as well." This implies that constrict grapple checks don't deal the unarmed non-lethal damage plus the constrict damage, but it deals the natural attack damage plus constrict damage, which seems to also contradict their earlier statement about how monsters deal damage in grapples.

I don't really care one way or another about this, but it is strange that their own articles on grappling rules seem to be contradictory or at least unclear.

Carn
ryryguy
03-21-07, 01:54 PM There's a new series of articles on Grappling on the site. However, I notice that they contradict themselves in a couple of places:

In Monsters and Grappling it says: "When using the “Damage Your Opponent” option, the creature deals unarmed strike damage appropriate to its size." So it doesn't use it's natural attack damage in a grappl eunless it uses the attack option at -4.

But right underneath that under improved grab it says: "Each successful grapple check the attacker makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. (This works just like making a grapple check to deal damage.)" Which can't be true since making a grapple check to deal damage deals non-lethal based on size, it has nothing to do with the attack that made the grab.

Under constrict it says: "If the creature later makes a grapple check to deal damage to a creature in its grasp, it deals damage from the natural weapon it uses in the attack (if any) and extra constriction damage as well." This implies that constrict grapple checks don't deal the unarmed non-lethal damage plus the constrict damage, but it deals the natural attack damage plus constrict damage, which seems to also contradict their earlier statement about how monsters deal damage in grapples.

I don't really care one way or another about this, but it is strange that their own articles on grappling rules seem to be contradictory or at least unclear.

Carn

It's not really a contradiction. The first paragraph about dealing non lethal damage is the default case for regular grappling. The next two paragraphs apply only if the grappler has the Improved Grab and Constrict special abilities.

(Though a creature with Improved Grab could still choose to use the normal rule and deal unarmed damage, but normally that would be a poor choice.)

The bit about "[doing damage with Improved Grab] works just like making a grapple check to deal damage" is a bit ambiguous and might be causing confusion. I read this to mean that the grapple check for using Improved Grab to deal damage is the same as the ordinary grapple check to deal damage, i.e., it's not an attack roll. But the damage done is different than in the regular case - that's where the difference is.
Matthew77
03-21-07, 06:10 PM You cannot see one holding a guy while the other punches? Clearly we haven't been watching the same movies.

Grappling doesn't mean they're rolling around in the ground. You can grapple while standing up.

I think you mis-read the post of mine that you quoted.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
darksilver 03-20-07, 12:54 PM	I can't get over the feeling that grappling seems too powerful. It has now become a regular tactic for the party to always attack enemy spellcasters by grappling. Considering they have a wild shaped druid (dire ape form), it's a fair tactic. What bothers me is that the rest of the party then gang up on the hapless NPC by slashing and chopping at him while he is unable to do much in response. There seems to be nothing in the rules to prevent this, not even a suggestion that the combatants may accidentally strike their friend. Does anyone else have issues with this state of affairs. It takes the excitement out of encounters for me. :confused:
Matthew77 03-20-07, 01:01 PM	Grappling is simply the best way for a non-spell caster to deal with an opposing spell-caster. In past editions, simply getting into threat range with a melee weapon would shut down spellcasting, but now that defensive casting is so easy, you need to take the extra step and leap onto the caster and hold him down. I don't really see it as a problem, its a legitimate anti-caster tactic. Spellcasters should be aware of their vulnerabilty and take steps to prevent it. The ultimate defense against grappling is freedom of movement. Many other spells can cause damage to grapplers if you cast them ahead of time, such as Balor's Nimbus. At low levels, use terrain to your advantage.. get up on a ledge or behind a wall so the grapplers can't reach you. Surround yourself with grunts that your opponents have to hack down before they can get to you. Spell casters always have to worry about being grappled.. in the same way that Melee tanks always have to worry about being dominated or charmed :)
darksilver 03-20-07, 01:16 PM	It's not the tactic itself that bothers me, but the situation where one PC grapples/pins the opponent and then just holds him while the remainder of the party attack with flails, chains, swords etc without fear of harming their ally. Missile weapons run a risk of harming an ally but not so for melee weapons - seems wrong to me, I just can't visualise it. Obviously I could just create a house rule, but I just thought I'd put it to the community.
Matthew77 03-20-07, 01:31 PM	I can usually see the realism in attacking into a Grapple with melee weapons. If you picture it as one guy holding the other down, instead of both of them squirming around a lot, it makes more sense. It does seem like a good candidate for a house rule though. Maybe force a -4 penalty to the attack, just like shooting into a melee? Rolling to see which target you hit tends to slow down combat and just be a general annoyance for players.
Leilond 03-20-07, 01:32 PM	Simply design better your encounter Never put a spellcaster without bodyguards. Think about a pair of thieves that sneak attack each enemy that try to grapple the caster. Think about a warrior/fighter that block the line to the caster. And usually a spellcasters, the bosses always, start the fight with some buffing spells already casted (invisibility, freedom movement, blink, fly) Smart casters never fall in the middle of a fight, but usually have one round (sometimes two) to cast defensive/buffing spell If a wizard turn a dungeon corner and find a fighter 5' in front of him, the wizard deserve to die and can only hope to win initiative to cast fly and flee
olshanski_home 03-20-07, 02:54 PM	Spellcasters should almost always be invisible, mirror imaged, flying, greased, or otherwise very hard to pin down. Having toadies in front of the spellcasters is also a necessity. Dimension door is a must-have for 7th level spellcasters to escape a grapple. Silent dimension door is nearly a must-have for 9th level spellcasters. You should expect that any solo spellcaster is going to be grappled and put down as the first tactic.
Marcus Majarra 03-20-07, 04:57 PM	There's another countertactic I found to be useful. And it was recurrent in some Legacy of the Green Regent scenarios: silent still dispel magic.
lastknightleft 03-20-07, 05:54 PM	I gotta say grappling is not overpowered, in real life it would be the same way. If I get you in my grip, so that your hands aren't free will everyone around be able to kick the crap out of you? yes. now, if I bear hug you, you're in an even worse position right? the balance is that to do so, you probably took several free attacks on me while I was trying to get you in said hug
Senevri 03-21-07, 02:47 AM	I can usually see the realism in attacking into a Grapple with melee weapons. If you picture it as one guy holding the other down, instead of both of them squirming around a lot, it makes more sense. It does seem like a good candidate for a house rule though. Maybe force a -4 penalty to the attack, just like shooting into a melee? Rolling to see which target you hit tends to slow down combat and just be a general annoyance for players. You cannot see one holding a guy while the other punches? Clearly we haven't been watching the same movies. Grappling doesn't mean they're rolling around in the ground. You can grapple while standing up.
Carn the Weak 03-21-07, 12:37 PM	There's a new series of articles on Grappling on the site. However, I notice that they contradict themselves in a couple of places: In Monsters and Grappling it says: "When using the “Damage Your Opponent” option, the creature deals unarmed strike damage appropriate to its size." So it doesn't use it's natural attack damage in a grappl eunless it uses the attack option at -4. But right underneath that under improved grab it says: "Each successful grapple check the attacker makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. (This works just like making a grapple check to deal damage.)" Which can't be true since making a grapple check to deal damage deals non-lethal based on size, it has nothing to do with the attack that made the grab. Under constrict it says: "If the creature later makes a grapple check to deal damage to a creature in its grasp, it deals damage from the natural weapon it uses in the attack (if any) and extra constriction damage as well." This implies that constrict grapple checks don't deal the unarmed non-lethal damage plus the constrict damage, but it deals the natural attack damage plus constrict damage, which seems to also contradict their earlier statement about how monsters deal damage in grapples. I don't really care one way or another about this, but it is strange that their own articles on grappling rules seem to be contradictory or at least unclear. Carn
ryryguy 03-21-07, 01:54 PM	There's a new series of articles on Grappling on the site. However, I notice that they contradict themselves in a couple of places: In Monsters and Grappling it says: "When using the “Damage Your Opponent” option, the creature deals unarmed strike damage appropriate to its size." So it doesn't use it's natural attack damage in a grappl eunless it uses the attack option at -4. But right underneath that under improved grab it says: "Each successful grapple check the attacker makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. (This works just like making a grapple check to deal damage.)" Which can't be true since making a grapple check to deal damage deals non-lethal based on size, it has nothing to do with the attack that made the grab. Under constrict it says: "If the creature later makes a grapple check to deal damage to a creature in its grasp, it deals damage from the natural weapon it uses in the attack (if any) and extra constriction damage as well." This implies that constrict grapple checks don't deal the unarmed non-lethal damage plus the constrict damage, but it deals the natural attack damage plus constrict damage, which seems to also contradict their earlier statement about how monsters deal damage in grapples. I don't really care one way or another about this, but it is strange that their own articles on grappling rules seem to be contradictory or at least unclear. Carn It's not really a contradiction. The first paragraph about dealing non lethal damage is the default case for regular grappling. The next two paragraphs apply only if the grappler has the Improved Grab and Constrict special abilities. (Though a creature with Improved Grab could still choose to use the normal rule and deal unarmed damage, but normally that would be a poor choice.) The bit about "[doing damage with Improved Grab] works just like making a grapple check to deal damage" is a bit ambiguous and might be causing confusion. I read this to mean that the grapple check for using Improved Grab to deal damage is the same as the ordinary grapple check to deal damage, i.e., it's not an attack roll. But the damage done is different than in the regular case - that's where the difference is.
Matthew77 03-21-07, 06:10 PM	You cannot see one holding a guy while the other punches? Clearly we haven't been watching the same movies. Grappling doesn't mean they're rolling around in the ground. You can grapple while standing up. I think you mis-read the post of mine that you quoted.