Grapple question (starting grapple)

[zlorf]

Hi,

The wizards of coast site states the following info about grappling:

Grappling Requirements

The rules don't go into much detail about when you're capable of making grapple attacks. Common sense, however, suggests a few minimal requirements.

Because grappling involves grabbing and holding a foe, you need both hands to do it.

Since most shields in the D&D game are strapped to your forearm, you can let go of the shield and use your shield hand for grappling. You can grab or hold a foe with a buckler strapped to your arm at no penalty. A light shield imposes a -1 penalty on grapple checks you make offensively. A heavy shield imposes a -2 penalty. You can't initiate a grapple while using a tower shield. Your shield doesn't affect any grapple checks you make defensively (such as check to escape a foe's hold).

Creatures that lack manipulative appendages can make grapple attacks if they have body parts they can wrap around foes or some means of clamping down on a target. For example, a snake can grapple by biting and wrapping its body around a foe.


Say for example a NPC start a grapple on me, the NPC has a sword and a light shield. The NPC drops the sword to begin the grapple but is at -1 to the grapple because he still has a light shield strapped to his arm. Im also carrying a sword and a light shield, do i have to drop the sword to defend myself against the grapple and am i also subject to a -1 grapple penalty because of the light shield?

Also say for example the NPC had a light weapon, would he have to drop it or sheaf it to start a grapple?

TIA
Zlorf

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The RotG articles are, generally speaking, a collection of a couple of designers' house rules.

There's nothing in the rules that require you to have a free hand in order to grapple, and requiring it, especially in the way that the RotG article suggests, is a Bad Idea (TM).

 

[zlorf]

Grapple question

Yes, that is true, but dont you think that the designers of the games opinions hold some weight? The RotG does touch apon alot of rules that are not covered in the PHB or DMG, which require house rules to be introduced anyways. My understanding initially with grappling, was that you can use any part of your body, ie hands, feet, etc.

Maybe something like 1 hand free is needed, but minuses if your carrying a weapon or using a shield. I still cant see why the defender of a grapple should be penalized, after all your try to break free of a grapple, you should be able to kick, elbow, headbutt , shield bash etc to get out of it, not worry about having a free hand or a shield penalize you.

The RotG articles are, generally speaking, a collection of a couple of designers' house rules.

There's nothing in the rules that require you to have a free hand in order to grapple, and requiring it, especially in the way that the RotG article suggests, is a Bad Idea (TM).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Yes, that is true, but dont you think that the designers of the games opinions hold some weight?

Depends on what they're sayin'!

The RotG does touch apon alot of rules that are not covered in the PHB or DMG, which require house rules to be introduced anyways.

Right - which is why I referred to the RotG articles as, sometimes, a collection of house rules. It's probably even an OK house rule to make grappling more difficult if you've got a shield, but it certainly isn't in the actual rulebooks.

Therefore, I don't think such a rule has any place in a series of articles that are supposed to explain the way the rules actually work - except, maybe, as a sidebar house rule example.

My understanding initially with grappling, was that you can use any part of your body, ie hands, feet, etc.

Arms, teeth, etc. Yes - that's actually the way the rules actually work. If you want a house rule to make grappling more difficult, then the RotG's suggestions might be for you.

I don't think it's a good idea to implement that rule, personally. I think grappling is complicated enough without additional modifiers and conditionals being bandied about.

I still cant see why the defender of a grapple should be penalized, after all your try to break free of a grapple, you should be able to kick, elbow, headbutt , shield bash etc to get out of it, not worry about having a free hand or a shield penalize you.

Which is why, in the actual rules, an armored defender doesn't have any penalties to his grapple check based on his armor or shield use.

So, it sounds like you won't be implementing this particular house rule?

 

[zlorf]

Grapple questions

Good points, most of which i agree with .

I think it comes down to one point though, which is, as you said that grappling is already complicated as is and adding extra detail will make it even more complicated.

The rule will have to be discussed with the rest of the group. Sometimes simple is best, maybe that the way to go in this situation.

Thanks for your input Patryn of Elvenshae.

Zlorf

Depends on what they're sayin'!



Right - which is why I referred to the RotG articles as, sometimes, a collection of house rules. It's probably even an OK house rule to make grappling more difficult if you've got a shield, but it certainly isn't in the actual rulebooks.

Therefore, I don't think such a rule has any place in a series of articles that are supposed to explain the way the rules actually work - except, maybe, as a sidebar house rule example.



Arms, teeth, etc. Yes - that's actually the way the rules actually work. If you want a house rule to make grappling more difficult, then the RotG's suggestions might be for you.

I don't think it's a good idea to implement that rule, personally. I think grappling is complicated enough without additional modifiers and conditionals being bandied about.



Which is why, in the actual rules, an armored defender doesn't have any penalties to his grapple check based on his armor or shield use.

So, it sounds like you won't be implementing this particular house rule?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Welcome! Glad to help.