House rule brainstorming: grappling sucks

[JRRNeiklot]

What happens when someone brings up negative levels?

AD&D. There are no negative levels.

 

[RangerWickett]

Step 1 - Make a touch attack to grab. Provokes an AoO from your target.

Why should grappling provoke an attack of opportunity? I'm not talking from a realism point of view, because yes obviously, an untrained person trying to grab a man with a sword is in trouble. (Though I've seen ARMA videos where folks with swords do a pretty good job of closing in for a grapple as part of their weapon-based attack.)

I'm talking about for a 'simplifying the rules' standpoint. Just assume that you know what you're doing, and require a touch attack and a grapple check. Adding in an extra attack roll just slows things down, and grappling is difficult enough to pull off already.

 

[mmadsen]

What happens when someone brings up negative levels?

When someone brings up grappling, they lose a level, and when someone brings up negative levels, they get tackled and pummeled -- grappled, if you will.

 

[mmadsen]

Why should grappling provoke an attack of opportunity? I'm not talking from a realism point of view... I'm talking about for a 'simplifying the rules' standpoint. Just assume that you know what you're doing, and require a touch attack and a grapple check. Adding in an extra attack roll just slows things down, and grappling is difficult enough to pull off already.

We should probably ask how we want grapples to play out. What are the most common grappling "scenes" from adventure fiction?

One common scene involves a tentacled monster grabbing a victim and pulling it toward imminent doom -- underwater, into its gaping maw, whatever. For this, we just need a to-hit roll, and the victim gets moved against his will each turn, maybe takes some damage, maybe gets a Str check against getting moved. And, most importantly, a good sword stroke can chop off the offending tentacle. (The 3E roper monster implements this just fine.)

Another common scene involves a giant constrictor. For credibility's sake, the victim has to slowly die if he gets wrapped up in the first place. The snake's attack is a bit like a Rogue's sneak attack, only the damage is delayed, so the rest of the party can kill it before the victim expires.

Another common scene involves some giant monster grabbing the victim with one hand, to carry off or to toss in its mouth. In the fiction, this doesn't seem especially damaging, and the victim generally keeps fighting. Our hero escapes by getting in one last poke in the eye before getting swallowed, or one fireball down its gullet, etc.

For a lot of kung-fu action, the grappling isn't really mechanically grappling at all. The last attack that finishes off a mook happens to throw him on his head, or into a table, or whatever.

So, when do we actually see something like a true grapple? When our hero gets overwhelmed "by sheer weight of numbers". That's a bit like running out of hit points against low-level opponents.

 

[Janx]

Why should grappling provoke an attack of opportunity? I'm not talking from a realism point of view, because yes obviously, an untrained person trying to grab a man with a sword is in trouble. (Though I've seen ARMA videos where folks with swords do a pretty good job of closing in for a grapple as part of their weapon-based attack.)

I'm talking about for a 'simplifying the rules' standpoint. Just assume that you know what you're doing, and require a touch attack and a grapple check. Adding in an extra attack roll just slows things down, and grappling is difficult enough to pull off already.

I'll cover this and mmadsen's comment about kung fu:

For a lot of kung-fu action, the grappling isn't really mechanically grappling at all. The last attack that finishes off a mook happens to throw him on his head, or into a table, or whatever

Simplifying unarmed combat = good. Amen. As a martial artist, I like to at least make sure your rationalizations are accurate. Basically, justify your rule with the right example, not an incorrect one.

I'm no karate super star. But I do hold a black belt in Ishen Ryu, and have had some training in grappling and weapons. I have some practical experience, as it were.

In karate, the hard styles (like Tae Kwon Do) are kicking and punching. Those pretty obviously translate to attack rolls for 1d8 damage when the Monk goes all kung fu on the bad guys. Nice and simple.

In the soft styles, like Aikido, Judo, Hop-kido, Ishen Ryu, and others, the combat is more akin to grappling. Or at least it can end that way. In my style, we do the usual kicks and punches, but we'll just as easily throw in aikido or hop-kido moves to sweep, throw, or trap our oponent.

In sword fighting, that too can quickly devolve from trading blows like Erol Flynn to punching with a pommel, trapping the enemy's weapon, and throwing them to the ground.

As my training covered, most fights (even bar fights) end up on the ground as the two combatants grapple, instead of trading blows.

So, Grappling ought to be easier and more common, not harder and less likely.

In real grappling, while I'm trying to do something to you, you're actively squirming out of it and trying to do something to me. Whereas in D&D, it's very much about taking turns. Presumably, AoO can sort of simulate this non-taking turns aspect, but it normally represents putting yourself at extra risk such that the other guy really has an extra chance of hitting you.

This latter, common aspect of AoO happening when you expose yourself is the opposite of grappling. Nobody in their right mind tries a grapple move in a real fight if the enemy was ready for it or if it exposed yourself greater than normal (technically, swinging your sword to hit the enemy, exposes you, so every attack should induce an AoO).

I'd therefore say that making a Grapple move (trip, throw, disarm, whatever) does not induce an AoO (as RW suggests). I'm going to sweep you because YOU are vulnerable to it, not because I like making myself a bigger target.

Additionally, a Grapple move may also be valid as a combat option if the enemy induces an AoO. You move stupid, I get a chance to Grapple you or swing my sword at you.

Now to cover mmadsen's comment about a take down being the end of a mook. While I can hope that me throwing you over my shoulder = you being KO'ed, I'm throwing you over my shoulder so you take damage from the fall. You may or may not stop fighting. Which is why I may just as soon hang onto your arm while you fly over so I can begin my next bit of damage infliction on your shoulder and elbow.

Assuming no other opponents to worry about, I can probably render you innefective by throwing you and manipulating your arm (and/or breaking it) as part of the throw such that I'm still on my feet and you are on the ground while I twist your arm into painful positions. If I let go, you may get back up and fight some more (depending on what I'm doing).

This is just a sense of what someone with unarmed combat skills can do. I'm OK if the rules don't fully model it or simplify it. It's nice when there's some alignment with reality and still keeping it simple. With most of the grappling rules, they always felt like they were designed by people without any fighting experience and thus made overly complicated.

It'd be nice for unarmed combat rules if:
weapon fights moved to punching, throwing, pinning as they progressed
grappling was as effective as attacking someone to death (I can sword you for six rounds or sword for 3 and grapple for 2 rounds)
grappling doesn't become the I Win button for strong characters in a fight (like the Chain Fighter of 3e)

 

[blargney the second]

I like having the AoO. It means you generally don't try to grapple the guy with a sword out who is ready to defend himself. Instead, you try to grapple the guy who is disadvantaged in some way and no longer able to take a free swing at you. All of that makes for some interesting tactical potential.

One of my favourite ways of accomplishing that is by provoking the AoO with my movement or something else that looks kind of stupid and necessary. They take their swing, then I can try the maneuver without much fear of reprisal. I enjoy that kind of stuff.
-blarg

ps - I goofed in my first draft. There shouldn't be a touch attack to initiate. Instead you just roll the grapple check, and that provokes the AoO.

 

[slobster]

After years of hating grappling, this is how my group handles it.

To grapple, roll a combat maneuver against their CMD. This provokes an AoO.

If you win, you two are grappling.

Whenever someone wants to do something, they describe it to the GM. Assuming he agrees that its a viable maneuver to try and pull off, that person rolls something appropriate against CMD. On a success he pulls it off.

Done. This is it. It happens rarely enough and is such a messy situation that leaving it to the GM really is the most palatable option for us. It works great and no longer does it take 30 minutes and 6 tylenol to resolve a grapple.

 

[mmadsen]

As a martial artist, I like to at least make sure your rationalizations are accurate.

When I mentioned kung-fu action, it was in the context of common grappling "scenes" from adventure fiction, e.g. fight scenes from Hong Kong action movies.

There, the "grappling" is often a "cool" step or two in a combo: slip the punch, outward block to wrist control, palm-heel to elbow, palm-heel to temple, control head, foot sweep, stomp, etc.

In game terms, that's just dropping the mook below zero hit points with a flurry of unarmed attacks.

Even a judo bout, in fiction, could be implemented as a series of unarmed attacks, because, in fiction, it's just a series of cool throws.

 

[am181d]

I just do it as a series of opposed rolls. The grappler uses STR and the defender gets to choose between DEX or STR.

If the defender uses STR, he can reverse and grapple the grappler.

A grappled opponent is immobilized and needs to take his action to try to break or reverse the grapple.

The grappler can do unarmed damage to the grappled opponent if he's still grappled on the grappler's next turn. Depending on circumstances, I might also let the grappler do weapon damage.

If there's a size disparity, I might provide a bonus to one side. For instance, if a tiny faerie was trying to wrestle a dragon, the dragon would get a hefty bonus. But if the dragon was trying to grab the faerie and the faerie was evading, I might give the bonus to the faerie.

 

[mmadsen]

The problem with adding sensible rules for grappling is that the base rules for combat in D&D aren't sensible.

Shouldn't every attack require a touch attack to hit, and then a different roll to harm the target? But scoring a hit isn't the same as actually hitting, and doing damage isn't actually harming the target, either. Spelling things out too exactly in a grapple clashes with the weird vagueness of ordinary combat.