Two hands needed for grapple?

[Deset Gled]

Yup, I was aware of that. But does another game designer read over what he writes before it's posted, or does Skip just get the benefit of the doubt that he's right from a mechanics standpoint? Even the best game designer gets things wrong from time to time.

Ah, I see.

Well, I don't know the answer to that question. But for the sake of WotC, I certainly hope they don't have anyone else editing his stuff for content. The idea that you could actually have some of that stuff pass through the hands of multiple game designers and have none of them correct it (or agree to let it be published anyway) is just sad.

 

[Amal Shukup]

Says in the Grappling Requirements, you do need both hands...

As others have mentioned - another foolish and ill conceived 'House Rule' offered in lieu of sound rule interpretations.

- Grabbing a sentry and stabbing with Dagger? A grapple.
- Pinning the defencemen against the boards in hockey? A grapple.
- Pinning opponent against a wall/floor with your shield? A grapple.
- Sliding down a rope and grabbing the hapless guard around the neck by your legs? A grapple.
- Simply sitting on someone while waiting for help to tie them up? A grapple.


All of these actions (except possibly the hockey thing) have a place in MY fantasy rpg...

A'Mal

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Go, Amal, go!

I love it - great, great examples.

 

[atom crash]

That gives me a great idea for body-checking sentries into walls in tight quarters so the other characters can rush by!

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

A Grapple is not necessarily WWE wrestling. Anytime a combatant enters an enemy's space (or forces the enemy to enter his) and uses rough force to gain a significant tactical advantage in that shared space, that is a grapple.

Amal's examples are right on. I do not see why a knight with sword and board cannot "grapple" nor a warhorse.

I can see giving a circumstance bonus to an Escape Artist attempt in some cases.

Regarding the warhorse, keep in mind that similarly large & strong beasts if they have good appendages for grappling generally get Improved Grab, Rake, Constrict, and/or Rend. The warhorse is implicitly penalized compared to a bear already.

 

[Fangor the Fierce]

As others have mentioned - another foolish and ill conceived 'House Rule' offered in lieu of sound rule interpretations.

- Grabbing a sentry and stabbing with Dagger? A grapple.
- Pinning the defencemen against the boards in hockey? A grapple.
- Pinning opponent against a wall/floor with your shield? A grapple.
- Sliding down a rope and grabbing the hapless guard around the neck by your legs? A grapple.
- Simply sitting on someone while waiting for help to tie them up? A grapple.


All of these actions (except possibly the hockey thing) have a place in MY fantasy rpg...

A'Mal

I am not saying that I agree or disagree, just that it has been posted, on WoTC, that Grappling does have requirements, by someone's view. Simply stated, I offered the info to the question posed. Do I agree with it, not entirely.

The only things that gets to me is that some people will abide by the 'All about (grappling, Mounts, etc)' and then instill those writings when it offers support for their arguements. But in this case, it clearly does not support their arguements, and is labeled as an article that needs to be completely ignored.

I agree that grappling should have requirements, and those should be more clearly identified in the rules. To keep it simple, I would allow a grapple in my game with at least one appendage (arm, leg, constricting appendage such as tentacle, or a bite attack, to name a few...) that can realisticly grab another arm, leg, etc...

As for the list posted by Amal, nice job, which I would include using a chair to pin an opponent on the ground, using a table to pin them against a wall, etc... As you can see, these are all housr rules. If you got them, use them. But list them as such, because that's all they are. House Rules...

'nuff said

 

[atom crash]

The only things that gets to me is that some people will abide by the 'All about (grappling, Mounts, etc)' and then instill those writings when it offers support for their arguements. But in this case, it clearly does not support their arguements, and is labeled as an article that needs to be completely ignored.

It's not that the RotG doesn't support someone's argument. It's that the RotG contradicts the core rules.

We've seen several cases of the RotG and FAQ -- which are meant to clarify and illustrate how the core rules work in different situations -- in effect introduce new rulings that contradict the core rules.

Although Skip Williams was a member of the 3E game design team, he wasn't the only member. And although he was a part of the 3.5 re-design team, he seems to want to stick to how the rules worked before the revision. End result: I'm not so quick to just accept anything he writes as "official" new rulings.

Where his "clarifications" contradict the core rules, I prefer to stick to the core rules.

 

[Storyteller01]

As others have mentioned - another foolish and ill conceived 'House Rule' offered in lieu of sound rule interpretations.

- Grabbing a sentry and stabbing with Dagger? A grapple.
- Pinning the defencemen against the boards in hockey? A grapple.
- Pinning opponent against a wall/floor with your shield? A grapple.
- Sliding down a rope and grabbing the hapless guard around the neck by your legs? A grapple.
- Simply sitting on someone while waiting for help to tie them up? A grapple.


All of these actions (except possibly the hockey thing) have a place in MY fantasy rpg...

A'Mal

And let's not forget bthe humble police officer, locking joints around batons (clubs) or night sticks (tonfa).
they make for nice levers to!

 

[Amal Shukup]

I am not saying that I agree or disagree, just that it has been posted, on WoTC, that Grappling does have requirements, by someone's view. Simply stated, I offered the info to the question posed. Do I agree with it, not entirely.

Stuff posted on WotC - or anywhere- that contradicts the RAW, is simply WRONG - it isn't about supporting a particular argument or position. The writer of the RotG article didn't check his article vis a vis the published rules and simply botched it, as has been done a depressingly large number of times before. If they want to CHANGE the rules, they can release Errata (not that they don't get wierd there too), but unvetted and untested online musings? No, I'm not 'changing' anything based on that (unless it suits me to do so - as a House Rule)

I agree that grappling should have requirements, and those should be more clearly identified in the rules. To keep it simple, I would allow a grapple in my game with at least one appendage (arm, leg, constricting appendage such as tentacle, or a bite attack, to name a few...) that can realisticly grab another arm, leg, etc...

See, this need to delimit Grappling is a reflection of YOUR desire to House Rule the process. Why do I need an appendage free? I can't press somebody against the floor without free arms? Whyindaheck not? Those limitations aren't IN the rules because they aren't required BY the rules. IMNSHO

Also, from a rules efficiency perspective, creating extensive and very specific lists of what is and what is not allowed creates NOTHING but problems - because designers can't think of every possible permutation ahead of time (Players come up with whacky new ideas, darn their fluffy little heads), and there just aren't enough trees in the world to pulp into paper to print such lists onto. Create a process. Let the DM adjudicate the process.

As for the list posted by Amal, nice job, which I would include using a chair to pin an opponent on the ground, using a table to pin them against a wall, etc... As you can see, these are all housr rules. If you got them, use them. But list them as such, because that's all they are. House Rules...

Ack! No! I don't think those are house rules - simply actions that need to be adjudicated by the DM. Requiring 'two free hands' is a 'House Rule'. Your suggestions wrt the chair and table are perfectly fine things to try - WITHIN the rules (maybe Grapple, maybe Bull Rush.. Bull Rushing with a table is an interesting idea). Your DM would likely apply modifiers for one thing or another (I'd make you take an improvised weapon penalty on the attack rolls, but possibly a bonus to certain Grapple checks for using a chair, say), but that's what the DM is for.

To start a grapple, you need to grab and hold your target

Describe for me a way that this can conceivably happen, and I'm going to let you try it. Grab with hands, 'hold' by pressing him against a convenient surface? Fine. Your hands are manacled and you want to hold him against a wall way over there? Bull Rush him first. You want to hold him against the floor? Trip him first...

I LOVE the flexibility 3/3.5 offers in terms of combat options

"I trip him" "<roll roll> Yup. "I use my follow up hit (Imp. Trip) to grapple/hold him to the floor with this handy chair I'm holding" Cool....

A'Mal

 

[Arkhandus]

In the grapple section it does not specify. In the rules of the game article they said it was implied. Do you need two hands free to initiate a grapple? so no grappling if you have a shield or a weapon out?

You need only one hand. The description for the Improved Grab monster ability mentions it. Besides, characters are normally only able to make unarmed attacks with their hands as far as the rules go, stictly speaking. Only the monk's description says that they, specifically, can make unarmed attacks with any part of their body. Dunno if that means a monk should be able to grapple without using their hands though.