Felon said:
These are both variations on the same maneuver, just at a different scale. Jumping on the big critter's back is one of those colorful things that PC's want to do that the game doesn't allow for--not well, anyway.
If I were designing a rule for this maneuver, I'd have to start by wondering what the real benefit is.
That's where I started. I realized that the main thing that the attacker was trying to achieve was to obtain a position which the larger opponent would have a hard time reaching. When I realized that, I realized what was going on was analogous to a shorter boxer moving inside the reach of a larger one, and so I named the manuever 'Clinch'.
Brief summary:
To clinch, you must draw an AoO and then make a successful opposed clinch check. When you clinch, your opponent can move, but they must make an opposed manuever check to avoid bringing you along with them (breaking the clinch). Further more, you gain a dodge bonus to your AC with respect to thier attacks and a circumstance bonus to hit (+2). If you are smaller than your opponent, you get an additional bonus (+2 additional per difference in size classes). You can also attempt with an opposed check on later turns, as a move equivalent action, to leave your opponent flatfooted. Conceptually, you get so close to a vital region, that your opponent is unable to defend it (you are inside thier guard). (Clinching and then power attacking is quite effective, as is obviously sneak attacks.) In a clinch, in quite the opposite way of a grapple, the smaller and more agile you are, the better you do (size modifiers are the opposite of a grapple, and the check is dexterity based rather than stength based). You can substitute your balance check for your clinch check, if it is superior, or if you are at least two size classes smaller than your foe, you can use your climb check instead.
While clinched you can attack normally, but only if either your opponent (or thier weapon!) is a size class larger than you (or your weapon). For example, you can clinch an opponent that is the same size class as you and still attack if you are using a small weapon, and they are using a medium weapon. (I'm using the 3.0 weapon sizes here.) Or you can clinch an opponent that is larger than you. You can't clinch against an opponent more than one size class smaller than you under any circumstances. Note that unlike grappling, clinching an opponent imposes no condition on them. They can still
Two combatants can clinch each other, in which case neither can attack except by drawing a smaller weapon, using a natural attack, breaking the clinch (requires a clinch check), or initiating a grapple.
The downside of a clinch is you give up your AoO if your opponent attempts to grapple you, which in most cases they will very likely want to do if they can. Once you are grappled, you no longer are clinched. So its a high risk manuever in many cases, but its possible that you might want to risk it if your goal is to become a distraction.
There is an 'Improved Clinch' feat that gives you base +4 to your AC and to hit when clinching, instead of the normal base +2.
Additionally, under my rules, you can't apply your strength bonus to hit when making a touch attack (you do however apply a penalty if you have one). This makes touch attacks much harder for very large creatures against small ones, so it tends to make clinching a reasonable thing to do.
The rules could be more detailed, and in particular they don't really take into account 'falling off' violently (except when clinching something which chooses to fly! Think about it.) which seems like it ought to be a possibility given what's conceptually supposed to be going on in some places, nor does it allow for a 'thrashing' manuever to break clinch violently or trampling you (say rolling over on top of you). But they seem to work for me mostly.
Incidently, this is another advantage to being small, so if you don't make other changes in the rules to compensate, being small becomes slightly more advantageous than it should.
Heh. Isn't it amusing that many folks don't realize that once you're grappling, the distinction between grappler and grapplee becomes meanignless? You drag the guy over to the cliff and try to drop him off, but the only way to do it is to go over the side with him. Heck, you have to make an escape check yourself to get out of the grapple.
Yes. The current rules handle moving the fight, but not throwing anyone out of it. So under the current rules as written, a fighter can pick up his opponent and move him off the cliff, but only by going along with him. The closest you can do currently is escape, and then bullrush your opponent off the cliff. I personally think that the rules need to cover attempting to do both at the same time, ei throwing.
