The big deal about grapple

[Iron Sky]

Actually, we had a grappling issue with the Choker in a playtest I was running last week:

Going directly by the rules, this is how it would have gone:

Player's paladin gets attacked, hit, and grabbed by the Choker from 2 squares away, immobalizing him. On the paladin's turn, he's immobilized(by the Choker grabbing him), but can't attack the Choker since it's 2 squares away, even though it's "choking" him.

I ruled that he was still immobalized and could attack it even though it was 2 squares away since I couldn't rationalize any way that it was physically grabbing him yet was out of his reach...

 

[small pumpkin man]

It's Str vs. Fort to grab, and yes, it causes the Immobilize status. In a grab, the attacker can do another Str vs. Fort to move the victim, although how far this move can be isn't specified in KotS.

And yes, it's Athletics vs. Fort or Acrobatics vs. Ref to escape.

Anyway, I'm not entirely happy that there isn't some AC penalty for being grabbed(I've won encounters in 3.5 that wouldn't have been possible without achieving a grab first. It felt awesome.), but I can live with it. They also seem like they'll be too easy to escape from, but I can always give my tougher grabbing monsters an ability that causes the escape roll to have some sort of penalty. Not bad, I suppose.

Characters get combat advantage against Immobolized creatures.

 

[Blackeagle]

Characters get combat advantage against Immobolized creatures.

Where does it say that? All it says on the conditions list in KotS is that you're unable to move.

 

[small pumpkin man]

Where does it say that? All it says on the conditions list in KotS is that you're unable to move.

It gets thrown around a lot, but since the closest thing to a primary source I could find was this. Which implies it may not actually work like that. (Or at least may no longer work like that)