Grab = Restrained - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Grab = Restrained

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
gregt_314
Aug 04, 2009 21:21:33 This came up on my blog, but I thought I'd just test it out here.

As written, being grabbed imposes the "immobilised" condition, under which you can't move out of your square using a move action.

Due to a brainfreeze, we'd been playing for a while with grabbed imposing the "restrained" condition, which makes you immoblised, gives you -2 to attack rolls, makes you grant combat advantage, and prevents you being moved out of your square by anything except a teleport.

I realise the grabbed = restrained is not RAW but we kind of liked playing that way. It made the woefully underpowered "grab" option a more viable action for PCs while still rarely a good choice, and it seemed to be more true to the flavour of being grabbed.

The obvious rule you'd need to go with grabbed = restrained is to say that the "move the enemy you have grabbed" option is an exception to the ban on forced movement.

Can anyone else see any other unintended consequences or balance problems with this house rule? I'm just looking to see if there's some result of this house rule that I haven't considered.
#2
bone_naga
Aug 05, 2009 6:52:58 I like it. I've been considering doing that myself, but I decided to hold off on it. For now I just decided that grabbed enemies can be used to gain cover (human shield). Being that grab seems quite underpowered, I don't see a problem with the boost.
#3
slobo777a
Aug 05, 2009 7:36:38 There are a few powers that can put a restrained condition on a target.

These powers are relatively weakened by the house rule, in that it is less of an "upgrade" to dish out restrained. Although preventing forced movement breaking the grab is still a big difference!

Balance-wise I'd say this was pretty minor though, almost negligable. If I was concerned about it enough to care, I might add something like "-2 to AC and Reflex" to restrained as secondary house rule.
#4
nowiwantmydmg
Aug 05, 2009 9:57:38 Yeah grab is weak, we've been playing it as restrained (purely in error) since 4e's release and it's still terrible.

Rolling against Fortitude to escape makes sense, but using a skill that's trained in 90% of the things that are being grabbed makes it really easy.

I'm thinking I might impose a penalty to the roll to escape the grab or make it a standard action to escape.
#5
thellaren
Aug 05, 2009 10:30:00 Bear in mind that this works for the bad guys, and many more of them will be able to grab PCs than can be grabbed by PCs.
#6
nowiwantmydmg
Aug 05, 2009 12:10:37
Bear in mind that this works for the bad guys, and many more of them will be able to grab PCs than can be grabbed by PCs.

Yes, and?? It's not really much of an inconvenience now is it? Almost any melee character(and many ranged ones) is trained in athletics or acrobatics(or both) and will have to roll something pathetically low to escape like a 5 as a minor action.

That's not to mention how useless it usually is to grab a monster as well, pretty much an automatic escape, which really hinders some of the cool stuff you can do with it.
#7
gregt_314
Aug 05, 2009 19:08:43
Bear in mind that this works for the bad guys, and many more of them will be able to grab PCs than can be grabbed by PCs.

The room that brought it to our attention was the phalagar/choker/ghoul combo in Thunderspire Labyrinth. That's an entire fight built around a very effective combination of grabbing enemies; we played it with grab=restrained and it didn't seem to break the fight (though it did get pretty vicious) so I'm not too worried about if from the point of view of enemies.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 gregt_314 Aug 04, 2009 21:21:33	This came up on my blog, but I thought I'd just test it out here. As written, being grabbed imposes the "immobilised" condition, under which you can't move out of your square using a move action. Due to a brainfreeze, we'd been playing for a while with grabbed imposing the "restrained" condition, which makes you immoblised, gives you -2 to attack rolls, makes you grant combat advantage, and prevents you being moved out of your square by anything except a teleport. I realise the grabbed = restrained is not RAW but we kind of liked playing that way. It made the woefully underpowered "grab" option a more viable action for PCs while still rarely a good choice, and it seemed to be more true to the flavour of being grabbed. The obvious rule you'd need to go with grabbed = restrained is to say that the "move the enemy you have grabbed" option is an exception to the ban on forced movement. Can anyone else see any other unintended consequences or balance problems with this house rule? I'm just looking to see if there's some result of this house rule that I haven't considered.
#2 bone_naga Aug 05, 2009 6:52:58	I like it. I've been considering doing that myself, but I decided to hold off on it. For now I just decided that grabbed enemies can be used to gain cover (human shield). Being that grab seems quite underpowered, I don't see a problem with the boost.
#3 slobo777a Aug 05, 2009 7:36:38	There are a few powers that can put a restrained condition on a target. These powers are relatively weakened by the house rule, in that it is less of an "upgrade" to dish out restrained. Although preventing forced movement breaking the grab is still a big difference! Balance-wise I'd say this was pretty minor though, almost negligable. If I was concerned about it enough to care, I might add something like "-2 to AC and Reflex" to restrained as secondary house rule.
#4 nowiwantmydmg Aug 05, 2009 9:57:38	Yeah grab is weak, we've been playing it as restrained (purely in error) since 4e's release and it's still terrible. Rolling against Fortitude to escape makes sense, but using a skill that's trained in 90% of the things that are being grabbed makes it really easy. I'm thinking I might impose a penalty to the roll to escape the grab or make it a standard action to escape.
#5 thellaren Aug 05, 2009 10:30:00	Bear in mind that this works for the bad guys, and many more of them will be able to grab PCs than can be grabbed by PCs.
#6 nowiwantmydmg Aug 05, 2009 12:10:37	Bear in mind that this works for the bad guys, and many more of them will be able to grab PCs than can be grabbed by PCs. Yes, and?? It's not really much of an inconvenience now is it? Almost any melee character(and many ranged ones) is trained in athletics or acrobatics(or both) and will have to roll something pathetically low to escape like a 5 as a minor action. That's not to mention how useless it usually is to grab a monster as well, pretty much an automatic escape, which really hinders some of the cool stuff you can do with it.
#7 gregt_314 Aug 05, 2009 19:08:43	Bear in mind that this works for the bad guys, and many more of them will be able to grab PCs than can be grabbed by PCs. The room that brought it to our attention was the phalagar/choker/ghoul combo in Thunderspire Labyrinth. That's an entire fight built around a very effective combination of grabbing enemies; we played it with grab=restrained and it didn't seem to break the fight (though it did get pretty vicious) so I'm not too worried about if from the point of view of enemies.