Close Quarters Fighting and Reach

[Creat]

All this talk about grappling has raised another question for me: If you attempt to start a grapple as a normal humoid, you have to move into the defenders space after establishing a hold and this moving provokes AoOs as normal. But if you only move 5 ft. due to both of you being medium size do you also provoke AoOs, since taking a 5 foot step never provokes them? Or assuming you already took a 5 foot step (since you can only take one per round and only if you don't move otherwise) would you provoke AoO with this move now? Or even with both moves since the first one couldn't have been a 'true' 5 foot step since you moved otherwise in the round? Or was the first still a a 5 foot step because this move doesn't count towards your movement for the round? But then again neither does a 5 foot step since it doesn't allow any moving around in the same round.

I just got really confused...
I think I would have the moving after the grapple started into the defenders space provoke AoOs no matter how far it is, but I honestly don't KNOW if that's right...

 

[Lord Pendragon]

This feat is already quite good the way it is.

That's just it. It isn't, if one rules as you suggest, because you'll never be able to use the feat. Only in a campaign in which most of your enemies are PC races will it be useful. In any other campaign, nearly all of your grappling opponents are going to be at least Large size. If not larger. Your ruling completely negates Close Quarters Fighting against the majority of foes for whom it would apply.

 

[Philip]

This feat is already quite good the way it is. It allows you to make AoOs against everyone trying to grapple you AND add the caused damage to the grapple check. As a bonus you also get to make those AoOs against creatures with improved grab. If would also negate reach for the purpose of grappling attempts that would be a bit too much, and they would have mentioned it in the feat's description if that's what the designers intended. You don't just 'forget' something this significant if you wanted it to be this way.

CQF does not give you any additional advantage against creatures that try to Grapple you that don't have Improved Grab, because such creatures already draw an AoO by trying to grapple you. And getting a bonus on the grapple check equal to your damage is also irrelevant with creatures without Improved Grab, because hitting them with the regular AoO cancels the Grapple (see the PHB).

As it now stands CQF only gives you an advantage against creatures with Improved Grab, who try to grab you from within your threatened area.

Suppose the following:
- 2 battles per session
- Once every 3 battles you meet a monster with Improved Grab
- In 50% of such battles said monster actually tries to grapple you
- Half of the such occasions, said monster has reach and tries to grapple you when its not in you threatened area.
- You hit 50% of you CQF AoO's

According to these estimates this means that you benefit approximately once every 12 sessions from your CQF. If that's youre idea of 'quite good', I don't want to know how often (if ever) you benefit from feats that are only 'average'.

 

[Creat]

Your ruling completely negates Close Quarters Fighting against the majority of foes for whom it would apply.

And getting a bonus on the grapple check equal to your damage is also irrelevant with creatures without Improved Grab, because hitting them with the regular AoO cancels the Grapple (see the PHB).

You miss the point of improved grab. They don't get that free grapple attempt for no reason and they need to hit with their claw attack for a reason: A creature with improved grab starts the grapple BECAUSE it hit with its claw and because of it's nature whis act itself 'grabs' someone (if he doesn't get out = grapple check) so you technically get the attack of opportunity AFTER the grapple has already started (or in PHB-Terms: the AoO occurs at the moment where the touch attack was already successful). So doing damage does not stop the grappling, it is just damage (and for the above mentioned reason not subject to the PHB rules).
Now if you are going all "but the PHB says if I deal damage with my AoO the grapple fails" keep in mind that you get that AoO even though it was not really provoked in the first place as clearly stated by the monster manual in the description for improved grab. So damage dealt on a non existant AoO can't stop the AoO I'd say.

As for your statistics: why would only 50% of mosters with this ability use it? Are they dead before they try? Then what's the problem? At least mine usually use it, I'd say about 90% of them do.
Also keep in mind that you usually try to hit him too, so unless it's one of the first rounds you will be standing close to him. If you're an archer/spellcaster or something you shouldn't be anywhere near his threatened area in the first place. Even if he uses in his first or second round while you're still away he's probably gonna use it on someone else first (3/4 chance if you're a 4 player group) and THEN on you (high probability if you're one of the melee fighters, and I wouldn't take it as a wizard or archer) since your entire group would have positioned itself according to each members function by then. Also not every large moster (with or without the ability) has reach!

compare the feat to improved counterspell (from magic of faerun), how often would you use that? you need a spellcaster as enemy! Or blindfight? We had concealment maybe once in the last 6 sessions or so (in a manner that the feat coul've been used). And thre are feats that are BY FAR even less useful! It all depends on your campaign, so that a feat is not useful to you is just no point at all. It means you can use it otherwise but RAW are as I stated in the last post (it says nowhere that the reach problem is dropped, nor is it hinted at).

 

[Philip]

The tyrannosaur charges across the plain and clamps down on the dwarven fighter, its fangs piercing its breastplate and drawing blood. With desperate effort and through a haze of pain the dwarf twists around and strikes the tyrannosaur against the side of its jaw with his dwarven waraxe.

Now the damage from this blow might or might not cause the tyrannosaur to release the dwarf instead of trying to swallow him whole. Normally, the dwarf (grapple +12) would have had little chance against the tyrannosaur (grapple +30) but the damage now gives him a fighting chance. This is the way I imagine CQF, and it makes perfect sense to me. Now consider the following, by interpreting CQF by the RAW:

DM:
The tyrannosaur charges across the plain, it attacks your dwarf and hits: 20 damage. It can now use its Improved Grab to begin swallowing you.

Non-rules-savvy player:
Didn't I take some kind of feat that helped in these situations last level? What was it called? Here it is, Close Quarters Fighting.

DM:
No, it doesn't help you in this situation.

Non-rules-savvy player:
(reading) Why? It says here it helps against monsters with Improved Grab. I should get an AoO that may help me in the grapple?

DM:
Well, you can't make the AoO because you don't threaten the tyrannosaur. You cannot reach it with your dwarven waraxe.

Non-rules-savvy player:
What do you mean, "I cannot reach it"! Its got its f**king jaws clamped down on my waist.

DM:
That's the rules. You have to be able to reach it, and you cannot strike at appendages with which the monster attacks you, such as claws or in this case, its head.

Non-rules-savvy player:
You mean to say that I should be able to hit him in the knee or something? And that would maybe make him let go as he tries to grab me?

DM:
Sort of.

Non-rules-savvy player:
Can my dwarf try this 'hitting in the knee' business, on his turn?

DM:
No, he is holding a dwarven waraxe, that it too big a weapon to use in a grapple, CQF doesn't help there too.

Non-rules-savvy player:
If I let go of the waraxe and draw my dagger, can I try it then?

DM:
You can try, but you must win a grapple check to draw the dagger, all your attacks will be at a -4 penalty, and 'hitting him in the knee', won't aid you in escaping from its mouth. CQF helps in none of these cases.

Non-rules-savvy player:
Where DOES CQF help me with then?

DM:
If he had done the same from one step closer, it could have helped.

Non-rules-savvy player:
Can't you make him do that then?

DM:
I'm sorry, he has to charge to the nearest square where he can attack you, so he is not allowed to charge and attack you from 5 ft.

Non-rules-savvy player:
Maybe I could have readied an attack as he tries to bite me.

DM:
Would not work as well.

Non-rules-savvy player:


I my game I am dealing with real-life players, so I rather rule 0 CQF than trying to explain why it doesn't work as most players suspect it would. And game balance would be preserved just fine.

 

[Philip]

As for your statistics: why would only 50% of mosters with this ability use it? Are they dead before they try? Then what's the problem? At least mine usually use it, I'd say about 90% of them do.

Monsters fail to use it on our CQF character because:

- They are already dead (or otherwise disabled, held, petrified, polymorhped etc.)
- They attack someone else besides the CQF character (and may try to grab them)
- They attack the CQF character with other abilities they might have.
- They attack the CQF character while he is still flat-footed.
- They attack the CQF character while he already used up his AoO's for that round.
- They miss the CQF with their initial attack(s).
- They hit the CQF character, but choose not to use Improved Grab (you give up a lot while grappling, particularly mobility, so not all monsters use their ability all the time. My monsters that most often do, incidentally, are either of animal intelligence or are big, high strength reach type monsters, or have things as swallow whole, which allows them to ignore most effects of grapple).

It should probably be worse than 50%, but I was trying to be conservative in my estimates.

 

[Creat]

Philip you actually make a good point with that real-life-post (though most my players were or are DMs at some point, so they're just as good with the rules as I am or better in some parts). I guess you could allow it. But you also have to keep in mind that this is extremely powerful in the hands of a barbarian. I have one in my group for example who has when raged and is frezied (he's a barbarian with the frezied berzerker PC, which may be an extreme example) a Str. score of something above 30 (usually bull's str. is active as well of course), and since he's wielding a 2-handed-weapon he deals like 15 damage without even rolling (not countig a possibly used power attack, which would be even way worse). Most monsters - no matter how strong - can't match him and will almost always fail to grapple him, so for those it's a free pass to never get grappled (well, close at least). So he should at least get a reasonable penalty for the AoO (maybe -4?) since he's trying to hit a smaller part of the creature, which increases that parts AC since all bonuses are the same except the size modifier. Generalizing this with a -4 should even things out at least a little in most cases.

 

[Trainz]

Philip you actually make a good point with that real-life-post (though most my players were or are DMs at some point, so they're just as good with the rules as I am or better in some parts). I guess you could allow it. But you also have to keep in mind that this is extremely powerful in the hands of a barbarian. I have one in my group for example who has when raged and is frezied (he's a barbarian with the frezied berzerker PC, which may be an extreme example)

You deny your PC's the full usage of CQF, but you allow them to play a Frenzied Berzerker ?

You've been looking in the wrong direction for the source of your problem. It's the Frenzied Berzerker that throws everything out of whack.

Also, keep in mind that a high level (12+) party with a cleric will most of the time be totally immune to grapple checks, as per the freedom of movement spell. It lasts 10 minutes per level.

I think you're directing your rules stance in the wrong direction. It is perfectly reasonable to let your players make full use of CQF, but you kinda shot yourself in the foot when you let one play a Frenzied Berzerker, unless you house-rule/modify it heavilly.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I my game I am dealing with real-life players, so I rather rule 0 CQF than trying to explain why it doesn't work as most players suspect it would. And game balance would be preserved just fine.

I agree. Even with a generous interpretation, CQF does not automatically nullify Improved Grab because (1) you must hit, (2) you must still have an available AoO, (3) Large & strong monsters still have a chance of winning the opposed check.

I see no balance issue with a PC sporting a 30 Str, high BAB, CQF, and Combat Reflexes being 99.9% immune to Improved Grab. A feat spent to partially nullify another feat is never overpowered.

 

[Trainz]

I see no balance issue with a PC sporting a 30 Str, high BAB, CQF, and Combat Reflexes being 99.9% immune to Improved Grab. A feat spent to partially nullify another feat is never overpowered.

Especially considering that someone with 30 Str is probably very high level, and is probably under the effect of freedom of movement all the time (through a ring, or the cleric spell), which makes him 100% immune to Improved Grab.