Problems With Grapple?

[JamesonCourage]

So, I've heard complaints that the 3.5 grapple rules are cumbersome to most people. As someone who has always found them pretty straightforward, can anyone please help me out and point out some common dislikes?

Also, if people have a problem with certain aspects (size factors in too much, etc.) then that's fine as well, though I'm mostly curious what feels clumsy about it to most people, as I'm looking into reforming it.

Thanks for the feedback! And, as always, play what you like

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

For me, it's clumsy insofar as it involves 3 rolls just to establish a grapple (AoO, touch atk, and opposed grapple checks). After the grapple is established, then there are repeated rolls to maintain the grapple in various degrees, namely "grappled" and "pinned"; as well as list of conditional actions depending upon those states.

Logically, that complexity makes some sense, but it's a complexity not shared by the rest of the game. Basically, for me, grappling just involves a much more convoluted subsystem compared to other special attacks, which tend to operate in the vein of "attack; on success, impose condition X; on failure, impose condition Y" or something along those lines. Pathfinder simplifies grappling a bit, but does so using its CMB/CMD mechanic; you might look there for ideas on reforming it for your game.

Good luck with whatever mods you decide on.

 

[Jimlock]

Let me explain as simply as I can what is the problem with 3.x grapple.

3.x Grapple:

 

[kitcik]

Just the fact that it is perceived as complicated is a big problem.

Honestly, I have never done much grappling for one simple reason - I have never had a DM that was comfortable with it.

You can never get comfortable with something without trying it, so unless you find a DM that is willing to try grappling, then you will never get comfortable yourself - as I have not.

 

[Tovec]

Before you go through the effort of reformatting it yourself I recommend looking at the Pathfinder version. It is streamlined and a very sexy alternative to the original Grapple rules.

I think what most people dislike is the vagueness of certain rules that are very important and that overall the grappling entries take up a page and a half in the book. It's not simple as "I initiate a grapple" because you have to do opposed strength checks and remember which modifiers apply, and worry about the size difference or if you have feats, etc.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Thanks for the responses and suggestions. I already have incorporated the unified combat maneuver checks from PF, as I thought they were a great addition, though I changed the formula of each, to fit my group and my game's mechanics (I also changed Feint to a combat maneuver, rather than running off of Bluff).

At any rate, if it's the three roll issue, I can see that. That's before the "if, then" style of grappling. It sheds some light on things. Thanks again!

 

[Celebrim]

'Reforming' it is not so easy as that. While in most cases the system would work fine if the touch attack was dropped, you run into problems when you have ogres trying to grapple fairies. At that point, the touch attack becomes the major limiting factor, rather than the opposed combat manuever check.

In its essence, when you are in a grapple you can either try to get out, or you can try some form of attack. Most of the rest of the complexity concerns what happens when you have multiple actors.

 

[Wyvernhand]

Preferences aside, there are a couple of things concerning grappling that are just plain broken (as in "does not work"). Check out the rules for moving a grapple. It takes a standard action, but you get a bonus if your foe is pinned and you are the only other person in the grapple. Now look at pinning. It takes a grapple action, and only lasts for a round. Barring gaining extra standard actions via Shapechange, Factotum, or Belts of Battle or other shananananananananigans, it is IMPOSSIBLE to gain that bonus to move a grapple. Its just a broken rule fragment that someone probably forgot to edit out between editions or something. An artifact of the broken nature of the manuever.

The other is the rake. The rules for rake ability state that a creature who starts a grapple doesn't get it's rake attacks in the round it starts a grapple. The rules description of EVERY creature that has rake states that the creature DOES get rake attacks in the round it starts a grapple. Two rules that directly contradict each other in all situations.

So yea, despite all of it's clumsiness, grappling is actually broken, but not in the ways most people think.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Thanks for the replies, Celebrim and Wyvernhand.

Reforming grapple, Celebrim, will be easy enough for me, as I am not restrained by a plethora of 3.5 rules, and the fact that I'm not too concerned with the attack bonus / penalty from size being a huge factor, as the game I run is not balanced around D&D AC mechanics.

As for your concerns, Wyvernhand, as I just mentioned (which you would have had no way of knowing), my game does not use by many 3.5 rules, including rake attacks. As for the pin and movement issue, it's currently instituted as a "pinned until broken" mechanic. I think that solves the issue you brought up.

Thanks again, both of you, for your insight.

 

[Wyvernhand]

Just because you can fix it doesn't mean it isn't broken. I was just passing along my musings of the "official" rules as posted. Editing fail is fail.

Also, natural weapons are kinda awkward in a grapple, sine the number of attacks you can make is limited by both your BAB (for grapple actions) and by your number of natural weapons available (since you can only attack once with a given natural weapon in a round). Awkward indeed.