D&D 4E 4e and reality

[Aegeri]

Not really. I didn't specific which. You just said you would.

Which I would. The grab action would fail, powers that grab would not.

Secondly, there was a brawler fighter in my current campaign (he died - no, not vs. a swarm he couldn't grab) and was never reduced to not functioning when he didn't grab. In fact, he grabbed only so often... There's only one At-Will, Grappling Strike if I recall.

Then he wasn't a very effective brawler fighter was he! Their whole point is grabbing. It's like if you told me there was a great-weapon fighter in your game and he threw chickens at his opponent.

Third, I would treat grabbing with the Grab action the same as grabbing with a power.

This is a common houserule, but really bones over Brawler fighters (that are actually built to do what the builds name suggests).

Wrong. Gargantuan is a size. The tarrasque is already gargantuan. A horde of them would be much, much larger.

Gargantuan is 4 squares or bigger. See page 282 of the PHB for reference. A tarrasque swarm is "gargantuan" because that is the biggest size in 4E, but in reality it would occupy over 4x4 squares (which is by definition gargantuan).

I am aware of both monsters, but there isn't anything particularly significant about either. I use the example of a crit as an example of rules inconsistencies (something I view makes just as little sense by the rules): Not something I change or even think about outside of internet arguments in my own games.

Why would his grab function any differently than when he makes a normal grab attack? Where in the rules does it say grab functions mechanically different if used in powers?

This is because the normal grab attack is its own power and specifically states that you cannot grab a creature more than two size categories larger than yourself.

The Brawlers power grab as an effect and the grabbed effect is this:

Being grabbed means a creature is immobilized. Unless otherwise noted, a grab lasts until the end of the grabber’s next turn, and the grabber can sustain the grab as a minor action and end it as a free action.

Certain circumstances end a grab: if the grabber is affected by a condition that prevents it from taking opportunity actions, if either the grabber or the creature it’s grabbing moves far enough away that the grabbed creature is no longer in the grabber’s reach, or if the grabbed creature escapes. See also “Escape” and “Grab”

Note that nowhere under ending the grab is "Too large". You are confusing the power "grab" that lets you grab a creature, with powers that grab as an effect. Powers that grab as an effect don't have this problem - otherwise how did you expect the Brawler fighter to use half his powers on a huge dragon?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Lol. Ok. Clever.

You can come up with a rationale or description or rationalization for just about anything, really, if you clever or inspired or whatever. That's why I don't think it's a great thing to go overriding rules for. Some players could be really hosed by it, if they're not that good at BSing on the fly (or just visualize things differently from the DM), others could get away with murder.

Why would his grab function any differently than when he makes a normal grab attack? Where in the rules does it say grab functions mechanically different if used in powers?

Freak'n exception-based-design, I guess. I prefer the exception be spelled out, though. An implied exception isn't much of an exception (though, I'd make exceptions to that when an interpretation is obviously broken in terms of balance or playability).

Is the size retriction under the ill-defined, burried grapple action in the combat section, or under the definition of 'Grab.?'

The only thing a Brawling Fighter gets is this:

While you wield a weapon in your primary hand and your off hand is free or grabbing a creature, you gain a +1 bonus to AC and a +2 bonus to Fortitude.

A bonus to defenses for keeping his free hand open.

And a bonus to unarmed attacks and moving grabbed creatures, IIRC.

Or is one of those is a feat?

 

[P1NBACK]

Which I would. The grab action would fail, powers that grab would not.

Can you show me the rule for this? Thanks.

Then he wasn't a very effective brawler fighter was he! Their whole point is grabbing. It's like if you told me there was a great-weapon fighter in your game and he threw chickens at his opponent.

Naw, he was pretty effective actually. The player is an excellent power-gamer and he died to save the rest of the party.

This is a common houserule, but really bones over Brawler fighters (that are actually built to do what the builds name suggests).

House rule? I'm just not seeing the rule that Brawler Fighters ignore the grabbing rules... I could totally be wrong. I'm just not seeing it.

Gargantuan is 4 squares or bigger. See page 282 of the PHB for reference. A tarrasque swarm is "gargantuan" because that is the biggest size in 4E, but in reality it would occupy over 4x4 squares (which is by definition gargantuan).

Right. A swarm of tarrasques would be larger than a tarrasque. I'm glad you see that now.

I am aware of both monsters, but there isn't anything particularly significant about either.

Well, except for the fact that you said the only gargantuan swarm would be a swarm of tarrasques. I said, no, the Angry Mob is gargantuan. So, that makes it pretty significant, at least for this conversation.

You're cool with a single human grabbing a gargantuan mob of humanoids, I'm not (outside of some fictional explanation, like using a board to force a swarm of rats to move). That's the point.

It's just the difference when you try to play the game to the T of the rules, and when you can make judgment calls with common sense as a DM.

I'd expect my players to call me on BS like that too. "The kobold grabs the mob of villagers you've gathered to take down the tribe!" "Wha?? You're kidding right?" "No, trust me! He's a kobold brawler fighter!" "Ummm... No." ":/ Yeah. You're right."

It's why the fiction is so important. That way I know what's going on. That way I can say, "Yes, certainly you can tear up the floorboard and use it to push back the rat swarm. That makes sense. Let me reference my page 42 of the DMG. Thanks."

I use the example of a crit as an example of rules inconsistencies (something I view makes just as little sense by the rules): Not something I change or even think about outside of internet arguments in my own games.

Sure, bud.

Someone give Aegeri XP for me for keeping me occupied all afternoon on a lazy Friday. He's a good kid.

 

[Aegeri]

Tony, the confusion comes from the fact some people don't realize "Grab" isn't a definition, it's actually an attack. If you formatted it as a power, this would be the target line:

Target: You can attempt to grab a creature that is smaller than you, the same size category as you, or one category larger than you. The creature must be within your melee reach (don’t count extra reach from a weapon).

Note this is a standard action attack, when you hit with it the target is grabbed (the condition). So when the Brawler fighter let's you whack an enemy and grab it, you go straight to the grabbed condition. The whole thing about size is irrelevant, because the power specifies as its target "one creature" and the grabbed condition specifies when it ends. So it's important not to confuse grab as in the attack with grabbed as in the condition a power imposes.

House rule? I'm just not seeing the rule that Brawler Fighters ignore the grabbing rules... I could totally be wrong. I'm just not seeing it.

Grab is a power, the target line tells you what you can and cannot grab. The Brawler Fighters power says "One Creature", it does not specify that you cannot grab a creature that is bigger than you. The powers are specific, one cannot grab a creature that's too large, while the brawler fighter can because the power specifies "One creature" in the target line.

I'd expect my players to call me on BS like that too.

My players have more fun when their powers are relevant and useful, not just arbitrarily made useless by my various whims of the moment. YMMV.

 

[P1NBACK]

You can come up with a rationale or description or rationalization for just about anything, really, if you clever or inspired or whatever. That's why I don't think it's a great thing to go overriding rules for. Some players could be really hosed by it, if they're not that good at BSing on the fly (or just visualize things differently from the DM), others could get away with murder.

Yeah. That's why you have rules as a guideline. "Sorry man, the mob is just too big and grabbing one of their kind doesn't seem to do much to immobilize them. They come toward you though and a couple of them start swinging wildly at you!"

Freak'n exception-based-design, I guess. I prefer the exception be spelled out, though. An implied exception isn't much of an exception (though, I'd make exceptions to that when an interpretation is obviously broken in terms of balance or playability).

Yeah. You guys are cool with playing with "implied" rules. I'm not. It's one thing to justify something with fiction, it's another to override rules because of ... nothing?

Is the size retriction under the ill-defined, burried grapple action in the combat section, or under the definition of 'Grab.?'

It's under Grab. I don't know of this "grapple action" you refer to. Do you mean "Grab" and "Grabbed"?

And a bonus to unarmed attacks and moving grabbed creatures, IIRC.

Or is one of those is a feat?

Yeah, that's true. I accidentally cut it off.

In addition, you gain a +2 enhancement bonus to the attack rolls of unarmed attacks and a +2 bonus to the attack rolls of grab attacks and attacks to move a creature you’re grabbing

Sounds like to me, the Brawler Fighter is just a good grabber. Nothing special about his grabs outside of everyone else's though.

 

[Aegeri]

It's under Grab. I don't know of this "grapple action" you refer to. Do you mean "Grab" and "Grabbed"?

Grab is an attack. Grabbed is a condition. Grab the attack has no bearing on if a power that grabs as an effect works or not. This is your (and many others) confusion. Grab is a standard action, strength vs. reflex attack and can be sustained as a minor action (unless a power specifies otherwise, which in fact many Brawler Fighter powers do).

Grab the "Generic" power has this target line:

Target: You can attempt to grab a creature that is smaller than you, the same size category as you, or one category larger than you. The creature must be within your melee reach (don’t count extra reach from a weapon).

The 1st level Brawler at-will has this:

Requirement: You must have a hand free.Target: One creature

Now, where on the target line does it specify ANYWHERE that there is a size restriction on the power?

Sounds like to me, the Brawler Fighter is just a good grabber. Nothing special about his grabs outside of everyone else's though.

Except he has an at-will power that grabs, meaning he can grab anything he hits with it while a non-brawler fighter is restricted.

 

[P1NBACK]

Tony, the confusion comes from the fact some people don't realize "Grab" isn't a definition, it's actually an attack. If you formatted it as a power, this would be the target line:

I haven't seen that confusion in this thread.

Note this is a standard action attack, when you hit with it the target is grabbed (the condition). So when the Brawler fighter let's you whack an enemy and grab it, you go straight to the grabbed condition. The whole thing about size is irrelevant, because the power specifies as its target "one creature" and the grabbed condition specifies when it ends. So it's important not to confuse grab as in the attack with grabbed as in the condition a power imposes.

I guess that's one way to interpret it. The other is to say that the Grab attack has the same limitations as any other "grab" as part of another power.

I think it's pretty clear that using the Grab attack and grabbing a target should follow the same guidelines.

 

[P1NBACK]

Moved down one post to reply to all this stuff.

 

[Aegeri]

I guess that's one way to interpret it. The other is to say that the Grab attack has the same limitations as any other "grab" as part of another power.

Okay.

This is the at-will Brawler power:

At-Will

Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee touch
Requirement: You must have a hand free.
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC

On the target line, please show me where it says this: You can attempt to grab a creature that is smaller than you, the same size category as you, or one category larger than you. The creature must be within your melee reach (don’t count extra reach from a weapon).

Because what you're saying is that Grab (as a power) means that a specific power, that is not grab, functions like grab even though it's not and has a different target line.

Grab is not a condition: It's an attack.

Grabbed is a condition that results from a successful grab: Show me on the grabbed condition where you cannot hold a creature two size categories bigger than yourself.

 

[P1NBACK]

Grab is an attack. Grabbed is a condition. Grab the attack has no bearing on if a power that grabs as an effect works or not. This is your (and many others) confusion.

Except a power like "Grappling Strike" and every other power like that, doesn't inflict the "grabbed" condition. It says, "you grab" the target.

Here's Grappling Strike:

Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you grab the target. The grab ends automatically at the end of your next turn.

It doesn't say, "and the target is grabbed."

There's a reason for that. You don't have to actually roll the grab attack, it just happens. But, it certainly follows the same guidelines. If you wanna "game the system" and try to interpret it otherwise (outside of system coherence and logic) by all means, go for it. It's your game. But, to say someone who uses the grab mechanic consistently across all powers is "confused" - well, that's kind of whack.

Show me where, anywhere, in Grappling Strike where is says, "grabbed".

Thanks.