D&D 4E David Noonan on 4E "Cloudwatching" (Added Dave's newest comment from his blog)

[heirodule]

It would make more sense to give us some actual changes to examine and try, and look at them with a critical eye, wouldn't it?

QFT

 

[Raven Crowking]

PLus, I would be very surprised if a known naysayer would be chosen as a playtester. It wouldn't be because of fear of negative comments in the playtest reports, but because a disgruntled player is a huge threat as a playtest leak.

Now, that is a plausible argument.


RC

 

[Celebrim]

It's entirely, 100% fair to say that. Ultimately it's the DM's job to control the flow of the game.

Equally important, it is the DMs job to be sufficiently familiar with the rules that the game is not slowed down or altered by his lack of knowledge of them. The DM sometimes wears the hat of a referee, and as the referee he is respocible for having a working knowledge of the rules regardless of how arcane they are, how rarely they come up, or how confusing they may be.

Please don't take that as a defense of the laughable grappling rules -heh.

Since, no one else will defend the grappling rules, I will.

The existing grappling rules are largely intuitive. They model the sort of things that you would naturally want to do when you choose to grapple. In total, with all of thier complexity, they run about 1500 words (3-5 pages). Most of those words cover special cases. The general, sequence of grab, hang on, and twist is pretty straight forward. In my experience, the main thing that confuses players about the normal process of grappling is the fact that during the grapple, grapple checks are used for two things - attacking and initiating/breaking the grapple. They get confused about the consequences of the two, and for example don't understand that a failed grappling check to do damage (basically a replacement for your attack roll) doesn't break the grapple.

I've never seen anyone who complains about the grappling rules suggest something simplier that doesn't involve lose of detail. The rules can be simplified by drop pinning, but then you can't pin something. The rules can be simplified by dropping the touch attack, but then its easy for big things to grab small fast dodgy nimble things. The rules can be simplified by removing the penalties for grappling, but then the already powerful attack just gets stronger. And so forth.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

I've never seen anyone who complains about the grappling rules suggest something simplier that doesn't involve lose of detail. The rules can be simplified by drop pinning, but then you can't pin something. The rules can be simplified by dropping the touch attack, but then its easy for big things to grab small fast dodgy nimble things. The rules can be simplified by removing the penalties for grappling, but then the already powerful attack just gets stronger. And so forth.

Once again, it was interesting to note that when 3e was first released, people praised the "logical" and "intuitive" grapple rules, as compared with the admittedly dreadful grapple rules in 2e and 1e.

Now, however, the designers promise to "clean up" grapple. Sigh.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

It's entirely, 100% fair to say that. Ultimately it's the DM's job to control the flow of the game. If something's clunky then it's time to find a work around or to simplify it - or even to wing it in the middle of a game. If a game is slow or clunky then that all comes back to the DM.

EXACTLY. I know that one of the things that help me the most are the Maneuver cards from Fiery Dragon's Battlebox. Those things are always in a stack near my screen for quick reference, especially if I know that there's an creature/opponent or even a player that uses it on the regular. One of the players in my Age of Worms game (the paladin) likes to use the Bull Rush maneuver alot so I make sure that that one is handy.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Once again, it was interesting to note that when 3e was first released, people praised the "logical" and "intuitive" grapple rules, as compared with the admittedly dreadful grapple rules in 2e and 1e.

Now, however, the designers promise to "clean up" grapple. Sigh.

This sort of attack on the designers grows tiresome.

Have you seen the grapple / unarmed combat rules from the previous editions?

The 3E versions are lightyears beyond them!

That doesn't mean that there isn't further room for improvement, however.

Moreover, I have absolutely no problem running the 3.X grapple rules, and have not since the beginning. That doesn't mean that everyone has had absolutely no problems with them, and I know this for a fact because I've been answering questions about them (and especially about their interaction with the unarmed strike and natural weapon rules) on the Rule board for the past several years.

What's even more telling, however, is that in 3E people actually use the grapple rules. I never saw that happen in any previous edition game I ever played.

 

[Celebrim]

Now, however, the designers promise to "clean up" grapple. Sigh.

Indeed.

Let me propose a rule:

Celebrim's Theorem of the Inherit Complexity of Grappling Rules: Unlike most sorts of attacks in an abstract system, grappling imposes a tangible condition on the attacker and defender. While still in combat, they are now in the 'grappled' state. The complexity of describing that state is directly proportional to the number of combat options available to the player because for each of these options you need a clause that answers the question, "What happens when I try to do that when grappled?" If you read the current grapple rules, you'll see that the overwhelming amount of words is spent answering questions like, "What happens when I try to attack/cast a spell/bull rush/move/trip/disarm in a grapple?" This is inherent to any set of grappling rules, and the only way to avoid it is to give the player either fewer options in combat or loss detail. For example, you can not answer the question, "What happens when I try to X when grappled?", but then being 'grappled' will - usually counterintuitively - not have an effect on that action. Hense, any set of grappling rules which is sufficient to be intuitive will also be somewhat complex. Any simplified set of grappling rules will, no matter how good it looks at first blush, prove unsatisfactory the first time someone asks, "Can I do this when grappled?" and the rules have no answer.

 

[Celebrim]

What's even more telling, however, is that in 3E people actually use the grapple rules. I never saw that happen in any previous edition game I ever played.

My problem with the 1st edition DMG's grappling rules was not that they were obscure or to complex. It was that they were broken so badly, I always felt like I was cheating whenever I used them.

It didn't take me very long as an official 'rat b!#$!#d DM' to realize that for many sorts of mooks, chosing to grapple was actually much more effective than thier attack, because thier normal attack did little damage and was highly unlikely to overcome typical PC AC's. By comparison, the grapple rules made them veritable killing machines. Ask any of my former players about zombies hordes + grappling rules.

(I had a similar conceptual problem with the notorious fact that many races, say saughin, were actually far more dangerous using thier unarmed attacks than weapons, but at least I had solutions for that problem that - clunky homebrew versions of AoO's and application of the 'to hit vs. AC modifiers to unarmed attacks'. I was never sure what to do about the grappling problem, in part I'm embarassed to admit because it was often a useful loophole to exploit in encounter design.)

So, I used them, but it was pure DM metagaming and rules abuse on my part.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Since, no one else will defend the grappling rules, I will.

The existing grappling rules are largely intuitive. They model the sort of things that you would naturally want to do when you choose to grapple. In total, with all of thier complexity, they run about 1500 words (3-5 pages). Most of those words cover special cases. The general, sequence of grab, hang on, and twist is pretty straight forward. In my experience, the main thing that confuses players about the normal process of grappling is the fact that during the grapple, grapple checks are used for two things - attacking and initiating/breaking the grapple. They get confused about the consequences of the two, and for example don't understand that a failed grappling check to do damage (basically a replacement for your attack role) doesn't break the grapple.

I've never seen anyone who complains about the grappling rules suggest something simplier that doesn't involve lose of detail. The rules can be simplified by drop pinning, but then you can't pin something. The rules can be simplified by dropping the touch attack, but then its easy for big things to grab small fast dodgy nimble things. The rules can be simplified by removing the penalties for grappling, but then the already powerful attack just gets stronger. And so forth.

Add me to the group that isn't confused by the grappling rules. They're straightforward and easy, and, as you say, only get complex when you start having to adjudicate special cases. However, with a little experience it's all pretty much straightforward.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The major problem with grapple is that the rules for monsters are dotted about all over the place. You have to read the grapple rules plus the sections on Improved Grab, Constrict and Rake, which are in a different book. The rake section makes it clear that only monsters with that ability get more than one attack in a grapple. Until recently my group hadn't realised this, in fact I suspect some of them still don't know it, which made grappling monsters a lot more deadly than they should've been.

I still don't know if haste gives you an additional grapple check each round.

Haste is a corner case. Monsters aren't, really, as they are more likely than the PCs to grapple.