How would you like to see Grapple changed?

[Sadrik]

I like the proposed change to size modifiers to make them -2/+2 per size difference, as well.

I really hope they do this too. +/-2 per size category will simplify play so much.

So the wizard is beset by the kraken. Rather than submit to the grapple, he twists out of the way (wrenching his back), falls, and rolls. If he tries to cast a spell on his next action, he has to make a Concentration check (or whatever). He takes damage from the tentacle, as if he had been hit, but is not grappled. Sure, the kraken can follow that up and continue to attack, but that's taking his actions. That's a lot better than taking his -20 on one tentacle to completely nullify the wizard. Sure, the wizard will spend some fights avoiding grapples, but now it's useful and heroic.

I like this, I think it gets rid of the need for an AoO and allows the player to decide which situation they want to put themselves in. Nice.

 

[Celebrim]

If we allowed hit points to be used, after the fact, to add to any defensive roll, we'd be getting somewhere. Got hit by the ogre's touch attack to grapple? Spend a few hit points to avoid it entirely. Got disarmed by the master fencer? Decide whether it's worth the hit points to keep your sword in hand.

The argument is correct. The 1st edition DMG describes hit points as being 20% toughness, and 80% fate, luck, skill, favor of the Gods ect. So the mechanic makes sense conceptually, and would solve some problems.

But...

I think it would create a worse problem. What you've essentially said is that all events should be conceptually identical attacks. There are very few circumstances were I'm not going to spend a few hit points to maintain a favorable status. This is especially true if I've got a cleric behind me that can 'heal' future disarms, trips, grapples, ect. with a single action.

Suppose you know that if you disarm an opponent, he'll be able to counter it with the lose of a few hitpoints. My expectation is that unless you'd broke the system you'd never attempt a manuever. If basically disarming someone resulted in a few points of damage on average, wouldn't you just attack anyway with the expectation of doing slightly more damage? Why bother use manuevers? I mean, manuevers are actually fairly rare compared to a full attack action as it is, why exageratte that problem?

Moreover, when manuevers do happen, its often because they are part of the flavor of a particular monster. They are part of what makes one fight different from another fight. By making negative conditions optional, you really change that. What's the difference between being grappled, stunned, dazzled, poisoned, or paralyzed?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think it would create a worse problem. What you've essentially said is that all events should be conceptually identical attacks. There are very few circumstances were I'm not going to spend a few hit points to maintain a favorable status. This is especially true if I've got a cleric behind me that can 'heal' future disarms, trips, grapples, ect. with a single action.

Right. That's why in my proposed grapple change, the wizard still suffers almost all the effects of being grappled, during the next round. He has trouble casting a spell. He is prone. In this situation, he still won't be casting spells freely, as if standing on a cliff out of reach of the kraken. OTOH, he has a way to stop the piece of the grapple that I think folks find objectionable in the game--Hey, I'm a hero, and all I can do is is try to roll a 20, while this thing hold me in one tentacle and beats on the rest of the party.

The purpose of the kraken grappling the wizard is to stop the wizard from casting spells and slow his movement (so that he can't run off and cast spells from over there). A bunch of peasants could keep chasing the wizard and make it darn difficult for him to cast spells.

If the idea were extended to other maneuvers, then there would need to be similar distinctions between what can be avoided and what can't. A disarm shouldn't be entirely avoided. Instead, up the ante. A disarm knocks your blade away. The attacker decides where it goes, within a certain range. You spend hit points, you still drop the weapon, but now you get to decide where it goes.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The 1st edition DMG describes hit points as being 20% toughness, and 80% fate, luck, skill, favor of the Gods ect. So the mechanic makes sense conceptually, and would solve some problems.

Monte Cook had a post on his journal about his splitting hit points 50/50. This wasn't intended to have any mechanical effect, but merely aid description. The top half would be luck, heroic capability, etc. Drop below half, you actually started taking damage. I think the 50/50 split is simply for ease of use.

You could extend that idea to be more formal, though. The top half hit points can be used to avoid things. You burn through these pretty fast, but on the other hand, you get them back fast, too. Maybe you don't even need a spell to get them back fast. The bottom half are actual damage, and heal slowly, absent magic.

The key to making that work in the heroic D&D sense is not to go the wounds/vitality route. For sure, don't provide a way to bypass the upper half and do damage from criticals. It's simply that the top half of your hit points have more uses than the bottom half.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Do you have a link to that pdf?

Grappling For Beginners: How To Strike, Hold & Throw is the basics, streamlining the whole grappling process.
{this thread also has the 'web-enhancement' that covers how monsters work under the system}

The sequel, Grappling For Advanced Students: How to Master Your Chi! takes the basics and build on them for a number of the more interesting options.

Good stuff...

 

[Felon]

I'm not sure I understand you, because casting spells and attacking with a sword or spear do not intuitively seem like options at all for someone who's in the middle of wrestling.

Intuitive thinking has a tendency to needlessly narrow down the notion of what it means to be grappling. Some may recall that the 3rd edition PHB had an illustration that was subsequently omitted from the 3.5 revision. It was Tordek the dward in the jaws of a dragon, readying his axe to take a swing. It was deleted no doubt because this is a form of grappling--the Snatch feat in action--and it's assumed that someone grappling has no way to swing an axe, despite the excellent example to the contrary that their own art department provided. Grappling need involve restricting the arms. It can grabbing someone by the neck, the waist, grabbing them by their clothing, or cramming the lower half of their body into mouth.

But you misread. The maneuvers I was referring to as "intuitively seem like an option" wast't all that stuff I specifically mentioned, but rather things you simply can't do when grappling, like the jumping on the giant's back or throwing the kobold off a cliff without going over with him.

 

[Kunimatyu]

Monte Cook had a post on his journal about his splitting hit points 50/50. This wasn't intended to have any mechanical effect, but merely aid description. The top half would be luck, heroic capability, etc. Drop below half, you actually started taking damage. I think the 50/50 split is simply for ease of use.

I think it's significant that we know that 4e has a "bloodied" condition that only happens when you're at 50% health...

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

Under the current ruleset, at any rate. I think that's probably why people are proposing that the current ruleset be changed: they're hoping the new rules will allow them to do the things they want to do with grapple, and that includes dwarf kobold tossing.