[D&D 3.5] Dragging someone off in ONE round

[Tinker]

But you can't move the person you're grappling with a move action. It is a standard action so you can't do it in the same round that you initiate the grapple, which is also a standard action at least.

Reference: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#ifYoureGrappling Move heading, second sentence.

Of course the DM can house rule it so that more cinematic exploits are possible in their game. That's their call; I'm just looking for a RAW answer to the question.

 

[Greenfield]

Looking over the Special Maneuvers rules in the PHB (Pages 155 and on) makes interesting reading.

Initiating a Grapple isn't a Standard Action, it's an Attack. If the attacker fails in a Grapple, and has iterative attacks, they can try again. The -5 penalty would apply to the Touch Attack needed to get the ball rolling.

Similarly a Bull Rush is an Attack (part of a Standard Action, but not necessarily the whole thing).

So Bull rush someone into cover, then Grapple. Your "Bull Rush" can't be more than five feet, since you need to make more than one attack action in the round.

Ideally you need three attacks: Bull Rush, Grapple, and Pin, to cover their mouth and silence them.

There are several challenges in this approach.

1) Realistically, you need Surprise to pull it off, you you get either Move or A Standard action in a Surprise round., not both

2) You need a tactical position that lets you force the person into cover with the five-foot move.

Far, far easier if you have someone else do the Bull Rush into the waiting arms of the Grappler, but that's not the scene we're trying to paint.

I suppose the question is, how married are we to the technical "in a single round"? If the end result is that somebody vanishes from sight before anyone can notice or react, is that good enough?

That is, are we painting a particular scene, dramatically, or is this purely an exercise in mechanics?

If we're painting a scene then we have the Surprise round to work with. Surprise followed by winning Initiative gives us the "What happened? Where did he go?" dramatic moment that we're seeking.

As an alternative, consider that seldom used weapon, a Net. One could imagine something like a cloak or heavy sack rigged up like the entangling barbs of the Net (PHB, page 119).

So on your first attack action you start your blanket party (i.e. throw a cloak or sack over the opponent), and on your next attack you use the trailing rope to make an opposed Strength check to move them into cover.

The "Move them into cover" part is questionable. The book says you can "control their movement", and specifies the Strength check as a way to keep them from moving, but leaves the rest up to the DM.

Dramatically speaking, "pulling the wool over their eyes" is a classic start to a sudden snatch attack. The mechanics of the Net say that the opponent is Entangled, which can be resisted or escaped, but once that point is covered the rest can work out.

 

[Tinker]

Similarly a Bull Rush is an Attack (part of a Standard Action, but not necessarily the whole thing).

That's not my reading. The sentence is "You can make a bull rush as a standard action (an attack) or as part of a charge." First sentence of Bull Rush rules, PHB 3.5, p154 in my copy, or http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#bullRush.

I take that to mean that a Bull Rush is either a standard action, a special variant on the Attack standard action, or (including moving up to twice your speed in a straight line etc.) it is a full-round action, a special variant on the Charge full-round action. Probably also, in a surprise round, Bull Rush incorporating moving up to your speed could be a standard action, a special variant on the standard-action charge. I do not see it saying that a Bull Rush can be just one attack in a Full Attack sequence. (I might be tempted to house rule that if you start adjacent to an opponent you can full-round Bull Rush them and get iterative strength checks to the same number as your iterative attacks, at the same penalties, and with a distance limit equal to twice your move, but I don't see that anywhere in RAW.)

I think it does work to start a grapple with your first attack of a Full Attack sequence and then with your next attack pin them for the rest of the round, including preventing them speaking, and potentially do certain other things with third or subsequent attacks, if you have them. But since speaking is a free action and can be done even when it isn't your turn, that doesn't stop the victim calling out between the initial grapple and the pin. Also, as I said before, moving the grapple is a standard action, not part of a full attack sequence or even a move action. You would have to do that in a subsequent round.

I don't see a way under RAW to silence someone with your first grab. Films and folklore about the special forces etc. suggest this ought to be possible if you catch someone by surprise from behind, but I think it may also need a house rule. Maybe a special Grab stage with -4 on the melee touch attack (and if you want to do the classic stifle-and-stab combo, either the hand over the mouth or the weapon will need to be your off hand).

OP LordPhrofet has rejected in post #3 the option of using a surprise round and then winning initiative for the first full round, saying it provides too much opportunity for other characters to see what is going on. Presumably they might make their Spot or Listen rolls and not be surprised in the first round, or might get a better initiative result than the attacker, even if the victim doesn't.

The net-equivalent blanket is a nice idea. A strict DM might make a continuous cloth less effective at entangling than a net (I would - the thing about a net is you get limbs and kit caught in the holes, not just wrapped up in it), but OP is the DM so can choose not to.

I'd say pulling an entangled victim towards you, or after you as you move, is a legit use of the movement control function of the net. You couldn't push them away or move them sideways, unless maybe you had your net on a strong pole, and even then I'd assign a penalty to your Strength check.

 

[Greenfield]

Difference between "Standard Action" and "Full Round Action".

One allows a Move or Move-Equivalent, the other doesn't

But I can see your hesitation to call a Bull Rush an Attack, when the book uses both words to describe it.

Anybody got any errata on this? Something that might clarify?

 

[LordPhrofet]

My thoughts at this point is create a feat that both NPCs and my players could use if they chose. It would simply give a -5 penalty on the grapple check and if they succeed they can do any of the additional grapple actions (except pinning) the same round they initiate the grapple. Does that sound balanced to people? Now the question would be if it would require improved grapple or not. I am leaning towards not needing improved grapple so non grapplers could still use it without the additional feat tax.

 

[Tinker]

I would feel it would be normal for 3e to require the basic feat as a prerequisite for any related ones. But you're the DM. I think it is really your players' attitude that matters: will they feel this is unfair if used against them? Or conversely will they use it to the detriment of future games? If neither then it is probably ok for your table.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[LordPhrofet]

I would feel it would be normal for 3e to require the basic feat as a prerequisite for any related ones. But you're the DM. I think it is really your players' attitude that matters: will they feel this is unfair if used against them? Or conversely will they use it to the detriment of future games? If neither then it is probably ok for your table.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

I would usually agree with the feat tax but I want this to be at least available for non-dedicated grapplers. With the AoO and the -5 it will make it difficult for a non-grappler to pull of the maneuver against equal or challenging opponents but would allow them to use it against a random mook.

New related question: Anyone know what the listen check would be for a thing like this?