Grappling Rules...?

[buzz]

2. The rules for grappling are clunky.

I'm guessing it's this.

Someone above used the term "ungainly" in reference to the grapple rules. That's a better fit than "clunky".

Thing is, though, that when I try and come up with a simpler mechanic, I realize that the current rules make perfect sense within the context of the system, even if they do require doing things differently than a normal attack. The melee touch attack makes sense, as does the AoO incurred, as does the Grapple check being BAB+Str, as does needing to make successful grapple checks to do things while grappling, and so on.

The only thing that doesn't make sense to me is not being able to automatically do natural weapon damage with a successful grapple (or at least attack with them at no penalty). It jibes with the RAW, but I tend to side with Skip that it makes sense to allow it regardless.

See, the real issue is just that the D&D rulebooks could be written a lot more clearly than they currently are. Not that they are written poorly, but that they could probably be pared down and made more unambiguous. D&D doesn't need a revision, it needs a rewrite/re-org.

 

[Quasqueton]

Go back and look at the grappling rules for earlier editions of the game. You'll come running back and give the current grappling rules a big ole hug and apology.

Quasqueton

 

[hexgrid]

I still don't understand the complaint. Which is it?

1. Grappling isn't effective enough.
2. The rules for grappling are clunky.
3. D&D grappling isn't like real grappling.

For me, it's #2.

I'm more comfortable with the grapple rules now, but for a long time it seemed like too much trouble to even bother trying to figure them out. There just seemed to be so many steps and details listed in the description, and it seemed to be so far removed from the basic combat mechanics. Like Shadowrun or something.

Not to mention that before 3.5, grappling involved stats that had to be derived on the fly (and often still do, in the case of players.)

 

[Raelcreve]

D'oh

I didn't intend for this to be a rules argument. Yes, it belongs in that section since it's become that. I was looking to see if anyone had posted variant grappling rules somewhere. I apologize for generalizing when I said "we all know the grappling rules suck." I think they do.

Actually I'm the one who said "ungainly". My whole problem is how the rules for grappling work. Some of the things are very good (touch attack, provoke AoO). But the 4 step process and all the opposing rolls interrupt the flow of play.

I know the combat rules are unrealistic: I've been in the martial arts for 17 years.

In touch with reality? Please. I was pointing out the things a grapple based character is going to have problems with, not a plea to make grappling more effective.

And I said you cannot pin someone with "only" one hand. That means just your one hand, no wall or floor.

The actual grappling action should be no different than regular combat. They need a subset of rules on their own, yes, but from the combat standpoint, it shouldn't be any different.

I guess from all the years of aikido and jujitsu I'm underwhelmed by the grappling rules, since it's such an effective form of combat. It looks like they threw it in as an afterthought, since the big monsters needed a way to squash puny PCs. :\

Yes, I am aware that you need to suspend reality when using the combat in D&D. I'm more of a strategic and tactical DM, so I tend to focus more an "realistic" combat. To me, the grapple rules seem to be less so than the rest...

 

[buzz]

But the 4 step process and all the opposing rolls interrupt the flow of play.

FFG's BattleBox has a business-card-sized cheat sheet for grappling. Very handy and keeps things moving.

The actual grappling action should be no different than regular combat. They need a subset of rules on their own, yes, but from the combat standpoint, it shouldn't be any different.

That's sort of the sticky wicket, though. Grappling really isn't all that different from regular combat, when you get down to it.

• Like casting a ray spell, you're making a touch attack instead of a regular attack. I.e., armor doesn't matter, so it's a touch.
  
• Like using a bow in melee or standing up from prone, you're doing something that provokes AoO.
  
• You're generally using your hands, as you would with an unarmed strike, so you do unarmed strike damage.
  
• If you want to use a weapon or do lethal damage, you take a -4 penalty just as you would in other situations where your ability to effectively use a weapon is hindered (shooting into melee, attacking someone with cover, using an unarmed attack) and you don't have a feat that mitigates the effect.

The main departure is the addition of the Grapple check, though really that's just your unarmed BAB plus modifiers that specifically apply to grappling (size, Improved Grapple, etc).

It seems like if you simplify any of this, you're either not giving the PC the benefit of their abilties, or else making it even less like standard combat. At least, it seems that way to me.

If you don't care about that, though, you could always take a page from the Book of Iron Might and just make unarmed combat into stunts. You take a penalty to reflect the condition you want to ifnlict and then roll to hit, and that's it. Ditto your opponent. Size and feats would just modify the roll. I can't vouch for my design-fu on this, though.

 

[mmadsen]

• Like casting a ray spell, you're making a touch attack instead of a regular attack. I.e., armor doesn't matter, so it's a touch.
  
• Like using a bow in melee or standing up from prone, you're doing something that provokes AoO.
  
• You're generally using your hands, as you would with an unarmed strike, so you do unarmed strike damage.
  
• If you want to use a weapon or do lethal damage, you take a -4 penalty just as you would in other situations where your ability to effectively use a weapon is hindered (shooting into melee, attacking someone with cover, using an unarmed attack) and you don't have a feat that mitigates the effect.

Why does grappling do damage? (And where was it "clarified" that it automatically does?)

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Why does grappling do damage? (And where was it "clarified" that it automatically does?)

Why wouldn't it?

And, it wasn't really clarified. It doesn't need to be:

Step 3: Hold. Make an opposed grapple check as a free action.
If you succeed, you and your target are now grappling, and you deal damage to the target as if with an unarmed strike.
If you lose, you fail to start the grapple. You automatically lose an attempt to hold if the target is two or more size categories larger than you are.
In case of a tie, the combatant with the higher grapple check modifier wins. If this is a tie, roll again to break the tie.

...

Damage Your Opponent: While grappling, you can deal damage to your opponent equivalent to an unarmed strike. Make an opposed grapple check in place of an attack. If you win, you deal nonlethal damage as normal for your unarmed strike (1d3 points for Medium attackers or 1d2 points for Small attackers, plus Strength modifiers). If you want to deal lethal damage, you take a –4 penalty on your grapple check.

 

[mmadsen]

Why wouldn't it?

Because, in real life, grappling doesn't do damage -- until you've applied a hard-to-apply joint lock, or thrown your opponent with a high-amplitude throw, or freed up an arm to wind up for an unblocked punch. You can grapple, full-speed, for hours without getting really hurt.

 

[buzz]

Because, in real life, grappling doesn't do damage...

But remember, this isn't real life. Hit Points are as much mojo as they are resilience, so I can buy a combat grapple being allowed to do some nonlethal damage. And let's face it, it's not like there are many creatures that do big-time nonlethal damage with a single, can't-be-criticalled strike.

 

[Stalker0]

My main problems with grapple is there are a lot of checks and not a lot of options.

However, I strongly against making it a grapple check vs a "grapple AC". The reason is many of the higher level monsters have such a big grapple bonus due to size, that they literally would never miss a PC's grapple AC unless they roll a 1.

With an opposed roll, there's always the chance of a PC rolling high and the monster rolling low.