Simplefied Grapple [Archive] - Wizards Community

Simplefied Grapple [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Naderion
03-12-08, 10:52 AM Here's an Idea for a simple and useful method to grapple:

Grappling is a Move Action, so you can make a Grapple roll and a Standard Action, or a Grapple-roll and another Move Action each round.

- When you succeed on an opposed grapple-roll, you and your opponent enter a grapple. You may take a move action before it, but no second action after it.
- When you succeed on an opposed grapple-roll, you may make a second grapple roll to disengange from your opponent as your second action.
- ..., you may deal unarmed attack damage as your seccond action, with no attack roll required.
- ..., you may cast a spell as your second action with a concentration check.
- ..., you can attack with a light weapon as your second action, with a -4 penalty to hit.
- ..., you can push or pull your opponent for a distance (not yet fully determined) as your second action.
- ..., you may retrieve a potion from a pocket and drink it as your second action.
- ..., you may activate a non spell-trigger item as your second action.
- ..., you can hold your opponent down until your next turn, and he suffers a -4 penalty to AC and Reflex-saves.
- ..., you may make a second grapple-roll to either deal unarmed attack damage or dissengage from your opponent.

Any thought on this?
Cranewings
03-12-08, 07:56 PM I don't really allow normal grappling in my games. This is the reason:

If a fighter has 100 hitpoints, does a 10 damage attack represent a serious wound or just a scratch? Sense successful hits don't have the ability to stop an opponent, neither should a successful grapple.

More to the point, grappling in a dnd setting would just get a character killed. Someone would stomp his head or stab him on accident. Not to mention the fact that a non-willing participant could pull out a little knife and deliver wounds the hitpoint system can't account for.

In my game, I handle each use of a grappling attempt as a separate action with its own rule, made up on the spot. The counter move can be anything. Say you are getting grappled and don't like it? Gouge their eyes out. They have to make a reflex save or let go. Multiple attacks? Keep trying. Once they are off, move equivalent to stand up and start pounding again.
trapspringer
03-12-08, 08:48 PM Wow. Ok, so your really, really wrong, Cranewings. You might wanna' lurk a little more for a while and post a little less 'till you feel this whole thing out.

Naderion, I get where you are coming from. I don't think the changes you've made are very balanced, though. A character with a focus on unarmed combat (be he a Monk or some bizarre animal thingy, like a druid with wildshape) would almost always be better off grappling at lower levels, especially with your third bulleted addendum.

What's maybe worse is that at mid to upper levels, it becomes even less viable with your rules than it already is. A fighter with a whole mess of attacks suddenly loses any benefit of those iterative attacks when he grapples.
Cranewings
03-12-08, 08:57 PM How am I wrong? I just explained something I made up in my head, on a house rules forum. I'm pretty sure it is subjective.
Naderion
03-13-08, 07:44 AM I'm open for all suggestions about a grapple-system that is as intuitive as regular combat. :D

The only thing I really require is the option to take someone to the ground andmaking him unable to attack or cast a spell anymore.
Of course grappling is extremely dangerous, but I don't expect fighters to tackle a Deathknight with a CR two levels higher, but thugs and wizards which are to be taken down without killing them.
Werral
03-13-08, 10:04 AM Cranewings's point makes sense - the grapple rules are fairly realistic while the core combat rules are not. So it seems tacked on.

However bneing grappled doesn't mean you're just lying there - you're still struggling against the opponent - never grappled someone in school? You still fight back and dodge while held, you're just more limited (so that's why no CdG).

Nadeiron
Nobody ever seems to complain about the trip rules. Tripping someone (or taking them down) is a form of grapple - you just don't bother to keep hold of them - so why not make it the same as trip but the held creature can use an attack to escape?
Also you shouold be able to use some weapons in a grapple (nunchuks, flails, whips could all be used)
Cranewings
03-13-08, 10:11 AM Even the hilt of your long sword could be used for say, 1d4 subdual + strength.
Orenmir
03-13-08, 10:42 AM @ the OP...

Your system seems Ok with the exception that you can't use a full-round to grapple and you can always opt to make 2 grapple check in your turn. This is great for a grappler at low levels because he gets 2 attacks per round. But, it's bad for a grappler at high levels because he only gets 2 attacks per round.

In the end, it really nerfs grappling for characters/creatures that want to focus on it. Your system is Ok for adding grappling as a splash to melee combat; but, I would never want to use an optimized grappler in your game. So, if your looking to purge such characters from your game, then you've succeeded.

On the flip side, grapplers will love the fact that you gotten rid of the touch attack to start a grapple. This makes starting a grapple way too easy for them.
Cranewings
03-13-08, 11:11 AM To the OP, your system is cool. The only things I'd change... I'd get rid of the penalty for light weapons, and give it a bonus. Little knifes are the grappler's enemy. There should also be some kind of roll to drink a potion when someone is swinging you around.
Naderion
03-14-08, 08:15 AM @ the OP...

Your system seems Ok with the exception that you can't use a full-round to grapple and you can always opt to make 2 grapple check in your turn. This is great for a grappler at low levels because he gets 2 attacks per round. But, it's bad for a grappler at high levels because he only gets 2 attacks per round.
No, you always get only one attack per round, because the first check only determines if you can do an action this round or not. Would you suggest making first a grapple check as a free action or no action, and then allowing for a standard or full action?
In the end, it really nerfs grappling for characters/creatures that want to focus on it. Your system is Ok for adding grappling as a splash to melee combat; but, I would never want to use an optimized grappler in your game. So, if your looking to purge such characters from your game, then you've succeeded.
Actually I want to have anybody try to grapple at times. Nobody ever did in any game I play.
On the flip side, grapplers will love the fact that you gotten rid of the touch attack to start a grapple. This makes starting a grapple way too easy for them.
I wanted to trim the whole process down and I think the meleee touch attack was quite redundant. For the average fighter at low or mid level, touch AC is about 12 or maybe 13, while attack bonus can easily by +10 or much higher.
But I see, that I've not included any Attack of Opportunity, which would allow the defender to keep the attacker at bay. Would that make it more balanced?
Cranewings
03-14-08, 09:03 AM Normal dnd fan fair is to give an AoO for anything other than stabbing with a sword unless the character has a feat for it.
Naderion
03-14-08, 10:24 AM And I agree that there should be one, didn't left it out with any special intentions about it.
Orenmir
03-14-08, 01:16 PM No, you always get only one attack per round, because the first check only determines if you can do an action this round or not

If you only get one grapple check per round, then you are really nerfing the system for anyone BAB 6 and higher. Why not iterative grapple checks for a full-round! That'll keep it on par with normal attacking.

Would you suggest making first a grapple check as a free action or no action, and then allowing for a standard or full action?

Sounds better. But, now you are making more rolls than the current system.

Am I reading this right... You have to make a grapple check every round just to maintain the grapple? Sounds like the current pin rules.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Naderion 03-12-08, 10:52 AM	Here's an Idea for a simple and useful method to grapple: Grappling is a Move Action, so you can make a Grapple roll and a Standard Action, or a Grapple-roll and another Move Action each round. - When you succeed on an opposed grapple-roll, you and your opponent enter a grapple. You may take a move action before it, but no second action after it. - When you succeed on an opposed grapple-roll, you may make a second grapple roll to disengange from your opponent as your second action. - ..., you may deal unarmed attack damage as your seccond action, with no attack roll required. - ..., you may cast a spell as your second action with a concentration check. - ..., you can attack with a light weapon as your second action, with a -4 penalty to hit. - ..., you can push or pull your opponent for a distance (not yet fully determined) as your second action. - ..., you may retrieve a potion from a pocket and drink it as your second action. - ..., you may activate a non spell-trigger item as your second action. - ..., you can hold your opponent down until your next turn, and he suffers a -4 penalty to AC and Reflex-saves. - ..., you may make a second grapple-roll to either deal unarmed attack damage or dissengage from your opponent. Any thought on this?
Cranewings 03-12-08, 07:56 PM	I don't really allow normal grappling in my games. This is the reason: If a fighter has 100 hitpoints, does a 10 damage attack represent a serious wound or just a scratch? Sense successful hits don't have the ability to stop an opponent, neither should a successful grapple. More to the point, grappling in a dnd setting would just get a character killed. Someone would stomp his head or stab him on accident. Not to mention the fact that a non-willing participant could pull out a little knife and deliver wounds the hitpoint system can't account for. In my game, I handle each use of a grappling attempt as a separate action with its own rule, made up on the spot. The counter move can be anything. Say you are getting grappled and don't like it? Gouge their eyes out. They have to make a reflex save or let go. Multiple attacks? Keep trying. Once they are off, move equivalent to stand up and start pounding again.
trapspringer 03-12-08, 08:48 PM	Wow. Ok, so your really, really wrong, Cranewings. You might wanna' lurk a little more for a while and post a little less 'till you feel this whole thing out. Naderion, I get where you are coming from. I don't think the changes you've made are very balanced, though. A character with a focus on unarmed combat (be he a Monk or some bizarre animal thingy, like a druid with wildshape) would almost always be better off grappling at lower levels, especially with your third bulleted addendum. What's maybe worse is that at mid to upper levels, it becomes even less viable with your rules than it already is. A fighter with a whole mess of attacks suddenly loses any benefit of those iterative attacks when he grapples.
Cranewings 03-12-08, 08:57 PM	How am I wrong? I just explained something I made up in my head, on a house rules forum. I'm pretty sure it is subjective.
Naderion 03-13-08, 07:44 AM	I'm open for all suggestions about a grapple-system that is as intuitive as regular combat. :D The only thing I really require is the option to take someone to the ground andmaking him unable to attack or cast a spell anymore. Of course grappling is extremely dangerous, but I don't expect fighters to tackle a Deathknight with a CR two levels higher, but thugs and wizards which are to be taken down without killing them.
Werral 03-13-08, 10:04 AM	Cranewings's point makes sense - the grapple rules are fairly realistic while the core combat rules are not. So it seems tacked on. However bneing grappled doesn't mean you're just lying there - you're still struggling against the opponent - never grappled someone in school? You still fight back and dodge while held, you're just more limited (so that's why no CdG). Nadeiron Nobody ever seems to complain about the trip rules. Tripping someone (or taking them down) is a form of grapple - you just don't bother to keep hold of them - so why not make it the same as trip but the held creature can use an attack to escape? Also you shouold be able to use some weapons in a grapple (nunchuks, flails, whips could all be used)
Cranewings 03-13-08, 10:11 AM	Even the hilt of your long sword could be used for say, 1d4 subdual + strength.
Orenmir 03-13-08, 10:42 AM	@ the OP... Your system seems Ok with the exception that you can't use a full-round to grapple and you can always opt to make 2 grapple check in your turn. This is great for a grappler at low levels because he gets 2 attacks per round. But, it's bad for a grappler at high levels because he only gets 2 attacks per round. In the end, it really nerfs grappling for characters/creatures that want to focus on it. Your system is Ok for adding grappling as a splash to melee combat; but, I would never want to use an optimized grappler in your game. So, if your looking to purge such characters from your game, then you've succeeded. On the flip side, grapplers will love the fact that you gotten rid of the touch attack to start a grapple. This makes starting a grapple way too easy for them.
Cranewings 03-13-08, 11:11 AM	To the OP, your system is cool. The only things I'd change... I'd get rid of the penalty for light weapons, and give it a bonus. Little knifes are the grappler's enemy. There should also be some kind of roll to drink a potion when someone is swinging you around.
Naderion 03-14-08, 08:15 AM	@ the OP... Your system seems Ok with the exception that you can't use a full-round to grapple and you can always opt to make 2 grapple check in your turn. This is great for a grappler at low levels because he gets 2 attacks per round. But, it's bad for a grappler at high levels because he only gets 2 attacks per round. No, you always get only one attack per round, because the first check only determines if you can do an action this round or not. Would you suggest making first a grapple check as a free action or no action, and then allowing for a standard or full action? In the end, it really nerfs grappling for characters/creatures that want to focus on it. Your system is Ok for adding grappling as a splash to melee combat; but, I would never want to use an optimized grappler in your game. So, if your looking to purge such characters from your game, then you've succeeded. Actually I want to have anybody try to grapple at times. Nobody ever did in any game I play. On the flip side, grapplers will love the fact that you gotten rid of the touch attack to start a grapple. This makes starting a grapple way too easy for them. I wanted to trim the whole process down and I think the meleee touch attack was quite redundant. For the average fighter at low or mid level, touch AC is about 12 or maybe 13, while attack bonus can easily by +10 or much higher. But I see, that I've not included any Attack of Opportunity, which would allow the defender to keep the attacker at bay. Would that make it more balanced?
Cranewings 03-14-08, 09:03 AM	Normal dnd fan fair is to give an AoO for anything other than stabbing with a sword unless the character has a feat for it.
Naderion 03-14-08, 10:24 AM	And I agree that there should be one, didn't left it out with any special intentions about it.
Orenmir 03-14-08, 01:16 PM	No, you always get only one attack per round, because the first check only determines if you can do an action this round or not If you only get one grapple check per round, then you are really nerfing the system for anyone BAB 6 and higher. Why not iterative grapple checks for a full-round! That'll keep it on par with normal attacking. Would you suggest making first a grapple check as a free action or no action, and then allowing for a standard or full action? Sounds better. But, now you are making more rolls than the current system. Am I reading this right... You have to make a grapple check every round just to maintain the grapple? Sounds like the current pin rules.