# Grappling For Beginners: How To Strike, Hold & Throw



## Morrus

[imager]http://shop.enworld.org/images/engs/product1776/th.JPG[/imager]"How do the grapple rules work, again?"

The core grappling rules are somewhat unwieldy. These amended rules aim to make grappling in your game a little more fun! Grappling also includes unarmed strikes – kicks, punches, bites and so on.

This short, 7-page supplement is not intended to provide a complete martial arts system with fancy moves; it is intended to replace the grappling rules in the core books with something a little more elegant. The d20 combat system is abstract in nature: you don’t worry about hit locations or the exact specifics of an attack, and these rules adhere to that philosophy.

Unarmed combat is divided into three basic moves: strike, hold and throw. The grappling rules are rewritten, some feats are changed and a couple more added to present a streamlined, easy to understand system which allows your characters to engage in unarmed combat without having to ask "How does grappling work again?"

In fact, your character can easily throw his opponent to the ground, hold him there and use his own dagger against him! It's easy to combine the three moves to represent almost any unarmed martial art style attacks without going into too much detail which slows down play. 

Grappling For Beginners: How To Strike, Hold & Throw by Russell Morrissey (me!) is available now for $2.49!


----------



## Bayonet_Chris

*Grappling*

I've always been unhappy with the core grappling mechanic too. It's a nice document with a pretty straight forward solution. What other "beginner" rules were you planning to write?


----------



## Morrus

I'm glad you liked it!  It's my first effort, so I'm more than willing to accept criticism, and will update the PDF if necessary.  In addition, if anyone asks any questions (clarifications or what-have-you), I'll update the PDF to make things clearer if it should prove necessary.  I hope it's fairly clear though - I went with a very bare bones, basic style.

I've prepared _Drinking For Beginners: How to Survive Dwarf Spirits!_, to be released this week, although that's not original material - it's the drinking rules by Rangerwickett and myself from TF&T.

I'm also considering a _Grappling for Advanced Students: How to Master Your Chi!_ - some new feats and PrCs, etc.  I've made a start on that.  My basic philosophy is that a "martial artist" isn't a superman, and mastery of unarmed combat is no better than mastery of, say, a sword.

Other than that, no specific plans.  Ideas are welcome, though!  I enjoyed the process immensely, although my layout skills aren't the world's best.


----------



## Cheiromancer

The "move while grappling" rules raise some problems for me.  If I am holding another creature, it says the creature can opt not to move with me.  It seems unlikely that the creature would cooperate with my intention to move elsewhere, so it pretty much boils down to saying that you can't move while grappling.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the rules (I literally just read it), but it seems to me that requiring a grapple check to move up to 1/4 of your speed would be the best fix.  

BTW.  How do you handle fractions?  If your base move is 30, do you move 7.5 feet?


----------



## Morrus

That's a good catch, Cheiro.  I think I meant to specify more regarding the creature opting not to move - a grapple attack roll is the best way to handle that.  I'll amend and re-upload (it should show as "updated" in your Bookshelf when I'm done).

For the fractions, I treat it like _Slow_ - round down to the next 5-foot increment.  Again, I'll add a couple of words to clarify that.


----------



## Morrus

OK, the file's updated.


----------



## Cheiromancer

One other thing I notice is that unarmed attacks now do normal damage- to be able to do non-lethal damage you have to take the improved unarmed strike feat (or have the equivalent class ability).  I'm not sure I like this; folks should be able to recover faster from a brawl than a knife fight.

Oh, and I think there is a typo in the "Press Hold" feat- it gives three options, then says "you may choose which of these two options is in effect..."

Unless you changed this in the updated file.  I haven't bothered to download the new one yet.


----------



## Morrus

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> One other thing I notice is that unarmed attacks now do normal damage- to be able to do non-lethal damage you have to take the improved unarmed strike feat (or have the equivalent class ability).  I'm not sure I like this; folks should be able to recover faster from a brawl than a knife fight..




Oh, that's totally deliberate.  It's always been one of my bugbears.  For a start, damage/HP in D&D is supposed to be abstract, so why differentiate between the two?  Only the last hit or two is supposed to represent real damage.

But the real bugbear I have is this: what difference does it make what you're hit with?  Why does a fist magically do a totally different type of damage to a club (which, incidentally, does the _same_ type of damage as a rapier).  

The only difference is the amount of damage done.  If someone sticks a knife in your gut, it does more damage than if someone punches you in the same place.  If someone nicks you with a knife and does little more than a shaving cut, it does less damage than if someone catches you with a solidly planted uppercut which knocks you flying.  There's no point going for realism when the rules let you hit someone with a 5 foot sword and have them barely notice.  That's not what damage and hit points are. 

So I got rid of the differential between lethal and non-lethal damage.  There's just damage of various degrees (i.e. a little bit of damage or lots of damage).  It's just another pointless complication to the grappling rules in my opinion.  If you want to beat someone to death with your bare fists, go for it!  If you haven't any special feats it'll be a lot more difficult than with a 5-foot sword, but it should be possible.

If you're not keen on that, it's a simple change to make unarmed damage non-lethal in your game.


----------



## Cheiromancer

When you explain it like that, I'm not sure why there is any option for non-lethal damage at all.  I take it you drop it entirely from your game?

But yeah, now that I think about it, non-lethal is kind of a weird mechanic.  Why should some kinds of damage heal 20 times as fast as other damage?


----------



## Morrus

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> When you explain it like that, I'm not sure why there is any option for non-lethal damage at all.  I take it you drop it entirely from your game?
> 
> But yeah, now that I think about it, non-lethal is kind of a weird mechanic.  Why should some kinds of damage heal 20 times as fast as other damage?




I think it's one of those hold-backs to old editions.  I've put the option to use the core (non-lethal damage) version in as an option, but included a link to this thread so those interested could see why I changed it.  I guess it's just one of those things which suits some people and not others.  But the, I didn't like much of anything about the grappling rules, which is why I wrote this book.

But yeah, non-lethal damage never comes up in my game (along with anything else I think is too cumbersome to bother with).  Gaming is fun; accounting is not.


----------



## Sean the Metamage

All right, finally downloaded it, read it, and approved!

Some remarks and questions, still.

Remarks first:

Page 3, left column, optional rule: use of 'armour' instead of 'armor', as in the rest of the PDF -> voluntary, to differentiate the armor (worn) from the armor (AC)?

Page 4, left column, "When you are grappling with an opponent., your actions are limited." -> dot after opponent

Page 4, right column, "As per standard the d20 core rules," -> shouldn't it be "As per the standard d20 core rules,"

Page 5, Old feats -> Tumble isn't a feat, so you shouldn't mention it along the feats​
After, some questions:

I have only one attack per round, and I just succeeded on a hold attack. Per the core rules, I would automatically inflict (1d3+Strength bonus) damage to my opponent at this point, and wait for the next round to inflict more damage. Now, per your rules, my fighter can only hold, and appears useless. And if he was a monk, even with flurry of blows, he wouldn't be able to hold then attack, since hold isn't a strike. Does it mean that hold is useless at low levels (until you gain iterative attacks)? Perhaps he could still automatically inflict damage, but in this case nonlethal damage - as opposed to Press Hold.

I have multiple holds (two, to be exact) established on an opponent, and I have the Press Hold feat. Can I simultaneously, in one round, inflict damage and prevent my opponent from establishing a hold on me (both through the Press Hold feat)?

Also, what is your point of view with the use of your rules with the flurry of blows ability?​
And finally, the presentation and layout (to make it even better):

The text in the paragraphs isn't solid, you should justify it (it makes the text seems more 'solid') -> but only for the paragraphs, not any title
Also, the feats appear too much spaced, because of the interval between each title and text in them. You could simple halve these intervals -> but only in feats

I tried printing the pdf, but decided against it because of the layout, since some information was on two pages, and I prefer having all on the same page.

Suggested layout:
page 2:	Introdution to Grappling ; Grappling Scores
page 3: Unarmed Attacks ; Strike ; Throw
page 4: Hold
page 5:	Hold (continuation) ; Multiple Attacks ; Old Feats
page 6: Old Feats (continuation)
page 7: New Feats​


----------



## Zoatebix

Sean the Metamage said:
			
		

> After, some questions:
> 
> I have only one attack per round, and I just succeeded on a hold attack. Per the core rules, I would automatically inflict (1d3+Strength bonus) damage to my opponent at this point, and wait for the next round to inflict more damage. Now, per your rules, my fighter can only hold, and appears useless. And if he was a monk, even with flurry of blows, he wouldn't be able to hold then attack, since hold isn't a strike. Does it mean that hold is useless at low levels (until you gain iterative attacks)? Perhaps he could still automatically inflict damage, but in this case nonlethal damage - as opposed to Press Hold.




Umm... under the core grappling rules you cannot both start a grapple and deal damage in one action either.  In terms of game effects, we're no better, no worse (In terms of mechanics, we've gone from three die rolls to resolve a single action to one die roll.  Wow!)

Since I haven't yet made it clear how cool I think your product is (I didn't have "permission" or somesuch to post a review the other day), let me reiterate: Wow!


----------



## Morrus

Sean the Metamage said:
			
		

> All right, finally downloaded it, read it, and approved!




Great!





> Page 3, left column, optional rule: use of 'armour' instead of 'armor', as in the rest of the PDF -> voluntary, to differentiate the armor (worn) from the armor (AC)?




I write in my own (British) English, but I can't change defined game terms.  So "armour" in a sentence, but "Armor Class" when it's the game mechanic.  



> Page 4, left column, "When you are grappling with an opponent., your actions are limited." -> dot after opponent
> 
> Page 4, right column, "As per standard the d20 core rules," -> shouldn't it be "As per the standard d20 core rules,"
> 
> Page 5, Old feats -> Tumble isn't a feat, so you shouldn't mention it along the feats




Thanks - I'll get those in the next update!



> I have only one attack per round, and I just succeeded on a hold attack. Per the core rules, I would automatically inflict (1d3+Strength bonus) damage to my opponent at this point, and wait for the next round to inflict more damage. Now, per your rules, my fighter can only hold, and appears useless. And if he was a monk, even with flurry of blows, he wouldn't be able to hold then attack, since hold isn't a strike. Does it mean that hold is useless at low levels (until you gain iterative attacks)?




I don't think so, for the following reasons:

Someone without Press Hold is just clutching at his opponent and trying to hold him still in an untrained way.  It's therefore not great for causing damage - but it is still useful.  

However, remember the off-hand attack rules.  You can hold him, and if you still want to hurt him while you do, you use those rules.  It should be a little trickier than when not engaged in a grapple. 

As you get better at fighting (by reducing the off-hand penalties or by gaining iterative attacks), you're getting better at hurting someone while grappling.  So you can still do it at low level, it just ain't all that easy.

Press Hold, of course, changes that.



> I have multiple holds (two, to be exact) established on an opponent, and I have the Press Hold feat. Can I simultaneously, in one round, inflict damage and prevent my opponent from establishing a hold on me (both through the Press Hold feat)?




Yes.  Each attack is seperate (although you may choose to narratively describe them as one).  



> Also, what is your point of view with the use of your rules with the flurry of blows ability?[/INDENT]




I don't see an incompatibility.  In fact, I've made it into a General feat in the sequel!



> And finally, the presentation and layout (to make it even better):
> 
> The text in the paragraphs isn't solid, you should justify it (it makes the text seems more 'solid') -> but only for the paragraphs, not any title
> Also, the feats appear too much spaced, because of the interval between each title and text in them. You could simple halve these intervals -> but only in feats
> 
> I tried printing the pdf, but decided against it because of the layout, since some information was on two pages, and I prefer having all on the same page.
> 
> Suggested layout:
> page 2:	Introdution to Grappling ; Grappling Scores
> page 3: Unarmed Attacks ; Strike ; Throw
> page 4: Hold
> page 5:	Hold (continuation) ; Multiple Attacks ; Old Feats
> page 6: Old Feats (continuation)
> page 7: New Feats​




I play with the layout a bit more with each update (so keep an eye on your Bookshelf).


----------



## Morrus

Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Since I haven't yet made it clear how cool I think your product is (I didn't have "permission" or somesuch to post a review the other day), let me reiterate: Wow!




Thank you!

When I was younger I used to spend hours redesigning modular "parts" of AD&D 1E, and later 2E to make them fit my personal concept of rules elegance.  Even if these rules aren't perfect (yet), I feel that they're an improvement on the core.


----------



## Sean the Metamage

Hey, Morrus, I'm writing a review for it, and I remarked that the bookmarks are all wrong, as they apply only on the feats, and for each part of them.

It would be better to simply suppress them, or otherwise make real bookmarks.

Waiting for your next update.


----------



## Morrus

Sean the Metamage said:
			
		

> Hey, Morrus, I'm writing a review for it, and I remarked that the bookmarks are all wrong, as they apply only on the feats, and for each part of them.
> 
> It would be better to simply suppress them, or otherwise make real bookmarks.
> 
> Waiting for your next update.




Eh?  I didn't make any bookmarks.  Is that something Acrobat does by itself?


----------



## Morrus

OK, found it.  I've updated the file again with correct bookmarks and fixed the typos Sean spotted.


----------



## Bayonet_Chris

*Clarity*

Here is something that is a bit unclear from the text - maybe because it's not explicitly stated one way or the other. It says you only need two scores for grappling - your grapple attack bonus and your grapple armor class. So you're attempting to get your grapple touch attack with a normal attack as per the base rules or you're starting off the bat with a grapple check and ignoring the first step?

That was unclear. Let me rephrase.
Option 1: Unarmed melee attack vs. grapple AC, free grapple check vs grapple AC if successful.
Option 2: Grapple check vs. grapple AC is the only roll.

I get the feeling that you mean to just enter with the grapple check against the grapple armor class, but I could be mistaken.

Also, I think it would be helpful to have a sample grappling combat to illustrate the system a bit better.


----------



## Morrus

Option 2 is the correct option.   It has been condensed into a single attack roll:



			
				From GRAPPLING FOR BEGINNERS said:
			
		

> A hold represents an attempt to grab, pin or restrain an opponent.  To establish a hold, you need to successfully make an attack roll using your grapple attack bonus and your opponent’s grapple armor class.
> 
> If you succeed in your attack, you have established a hold on your opponent.  If you fail, your attack is ineffective (you may be hanging uselessly off the ogres’ leg, or the spry elf may have squirmed aside).




Throws and Strikes work the same way.  

My next thought is to redress a bunch of those special combat actions in the PHB which don't use a single roll - bullrush, trip (which you'd just replace with a Throw anyway), etc.


----------



## Bayonet_Chris

*I see it*

OK, I got it now. I thought that was the case. Thanks.
-C


----------



## Morrus

The book has been updated again, folks - a couple of minor typos plus a new section covering Bullrush, Overrun and Trip.


----------



## RangerWickett

Russ, I haven't yet had a chance to look at this product, but the one fix I use for my campaign is this:

Special attacks -- bull rushes, disarms, trips, and grapples -- only provoke an attack of opportunity if you fail. In a trip or disarm, the opponent may use this AoO to try to trip or disarm you in response without themselves provoking an AoO. I feel this encourages players to try weird maneuvers, since they're not immediately punished just for trying. It gives combat a bit more spice.


----------



## Sean the Metamage

Morrus, trying to review, I started thinking about all the applications of your rules, and I thought about dragons, snakes, etc...

What do you do about Constrict, Improved Grab, Rake, Swallow Whole, and Snatch? (all special abilities, save Snatch, a monster feat)

Also, I just downloaded the last update, and I saw that the ZIP contained the earlier PDF (not updated) + the doc (updated). Is it voluntary?


----------



## Morrus

Oh, oops.  That's not what I meant to do!  I stuck the wrong one in the ZIP, clearly.  I'll reupload.

Yeah, I thought about those issues, too.  I think that will require a section all of its own!


----------



## Morrus

OK, consider the attached to be a [draft] free web-enhancement for the book.  I may integrate it into the PDF at some point, but I wanted the PDF to be short and simple, and it's getting longer!  At this rate it's gonna look like a complicated ruleset!


----------



## Kristian Serrano

Zoatebix said:
			
		

> Umm... under the core grappling rules you cannot both start a grapple and deal damage in one action either.



Actually, you do automatically inflict damage as a free action.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#grapple


> *Step 3*
> 
> Hold. Make an opposed grapple check as a free action.
> 
> If you succeed, you and your target are now grappling, _and you deal damage to the target as if with an unarmed strike._



Under these new rules, low-level characters will never be able to apply damage while grappling someone.

Additionally, I'm a bit unclear about "throw" attack actions with weapons such as whips and chains. With these rules, it seems that the attacker now has to make a "hold" action one round and a "throw" action in another instead of tripping them.


----------



## Kristian Serrano

*Examples?*

I'm thinking perhaps the PDF should have several different scenarios with steps of turns and rounds to show how these rules work in play. Also include examples of individuals making "throw" attacks without engaging in a grapple first.


----------



## Morrus

amaril said:
			
		

> Additionally, I'm a bit unclear about "throw" attack actions with weapons such as whips and chains. With these rules, it seems that the attacker now has to make a "hold" action one round and a "throw" action in another instead of tripping them.
> 
> Also include examples of individuals making "throw" attacks without engaging in a grapple first.




Not at all.  All three attack types are a single attack and a single attack roll.  No preliminary hold is required before a throw. A trip is a Throw attack, which requires one attack roll against the target's grapple armor class.  If you succeed, he's prone.  If you fail, he's not.

Here's what the PDF says:



			
				From The PDF said:
			
		

> A throw is resolved in the same way as a hold – you must make an attack against your opponent’s grapple armor class using your grapple attack bonus.  If you succeed, your opponent is rendered prone.




To be honest, while I'd love to make that clearer in the PDF, I can't see how I can word it in a clearer way.  I can't see anywhere where it implies that a hold is required before a throw, but if I have misphrased something somewhere, please let me know where so that I can correct it.

Your example of someone making a throw attack without "engaging in a grapple"... well, for a start, you can't "engage in a grapple": you're getting that from the core rules, not from this PDF.  All you can do is attempt a Strike, Hold or Throw attack. Your example by these rules therefore goes as follows:

_*Peter rolls to hit Paul*.  He hits.  Paul falls down.*_

*Noting that you are using grapple attack bonus and grapple armor class.

See how simple it is?  You can see why I haven't included examples! Let me know if that clears things up.  Remember, IGNORE the PHB grappling rules.  Don't mix anything from the PHV section on grappling with this.  They are two different systems.


----------



## Kristian Serrano

Morrus said:
			
		

> Not at all.  All three attack types are a single attack and a single attack roll.  No preliminary hold is required before a throw. A trip is a Throw attack, which requires one attack roll against the target's grapple armor class.  If you succeed, he's prone.  If you fail, he's not.



My mistake. I think I just misread the PDF when I was trying to quickly digest it.


----------



## Zoatebix

amaril said:
			
		

> Actually, you do automatically inflict damage as a free action.
> http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#grapple
> Under these new rules, low-level characters will never be able to apply damage while grappling someone.
> 
> Additionally, I'm a bit unclear about "throw" attack actions with weapons such as whips and chains. With these rules, it seems that the attacker now has to make a "hold" action one round and a "throw" action in another instead of tripping them.




Right you are - I honestly don't know what I was thinking.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

Got some tweaks for you on the draft of the Monster thing....



			
				ediited paragraphs said:
			
		

> Breath Weapons
> 
> Opponents are denied saving throws against the breath weapon of a creature that has a Hold on them with a Bite attack.
> 
> Constrict
> 
> A creature with this special attack can crush an opponent, dealing bludgeoning damage at the end of its turn if it has a Hold on that opponent. The amount of damage is indicated in the creature’s description.
> 
> Improved Grab
> 
> If a creature with this special attack succeeds at a normal attack, it may make a grapple attack to establish a Hold as a free action. This free attack does not draw an AoO. If the grapple is successful, the target is drawn into the creature’s space. Unless otherwise noted, improved grab works only against opponents at least one size category smaller than the creature.
> The creature may take a –10 penalty to the Hold attempt in exchange for the ability to not be considered Grappled.
> 
> Rake
> 
> A monster with the rake ability usually gains two additional claw attacks that it can use only against a held foe. Rake attacks are unarmed Strikes at the creatures highest BAB.
> 
> Snatch
> 
> The creature gains the ability of Improved Grab. In addition, if the target opponent is three or more sizes smaller, it gains the following additional benefits:
> -  The creature is not considered to be Grappled.
> -  At the start of any round in which the creature has a Hold on the smaller creature, it automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold.
> -  The creature with Snatch can move normally while maintaining a Hold on the opponent (possibly carrying away the opponent), provided it can drag the opponent’s weight.
> -  The creature can drop the creature it has snatched as a free action or use a standard action to fling it aside. A flung creature travels 1d6 × 10 feet, and takes 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet travelled. If the creature flings a snatched opponent while flying, the opponent takes this amount or falling damage, whichever is greater.
> Note: Tumble and Monk skills may negate/soften the damage from being flung.




Change thoughts:
 Added the breath weapon bit on its own just to cover all bases since it comes up in Imp Grab, Swallow Whole, and Snatch
 Changed Constrict to read smoother and be easier to institute. SImple rule.. end of Snakes turn, check has Hold? Yes = damage 
 Changed Imp Grab to match Core {mostly}
 Changes Snatch to match Core {mostly}
  Rake.. deleted your avoiding the -4 penatly. If the Rake attacks are at the highest BAB, then you add in the -4 penalty you end up with pretty much the same score. Having the ability be two 'free' strikes once a Hold is gained. I think the critter should be able to Rake on the same turn. Pounce adds movement + Full attack + Rakes...   

Anyway, just some random thoughts 
I like the rest of the material..


----------



## Morrus

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Got some tweaks for you on the draft of the Monster thing....
> 
> 
> 
> Change thoughts:
> Added the breath weapon bit on its own just to cover all bases since it comes up in Imp Grab, Swallow Whole, and Snatch
> Changed Constrict to read smoother and be easier to institute. SImple rule.. end of Snakes turn, check has Hold? Yes = damage
> Changed Imp Grab to match Core {mostly}
> Changes Snatch to match Core {mostly}
> Rake.. deleted your avoiding the -4 penatly. If the Rake attacks are at the highest BAB, then you add in the -4 penalty you end up with pretty much the same score. Having the ability be two 'free' strikes once a Hold is gained. I think the critter should be able to Rake on the same turn. Pounce adds movement + Full attack + Rakes...
> 
> Anyway, just some random thoughts
> I like the rest of the material..




Very nice - thank you!  I must put a note thanking you in the book.


----------



## Morrus

amaril said:
			
		

> My mistake. I think I just misread the PDF when I was trying to quickly digest it.




Out of curiosity, amaril - how do you manage to have a copy of the PDF yet not have it in your Bookshelf?


----------



## RangerWickett

I know that when I send out complimentary copies, if someone clicks 'download' as opposed to 'add to bookshelf,' they just get it once, instead of being able to get it whenever.


----------



## Kristian Serrano

Morrus said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, amaril - how do you manage to have a copy of the PDF yet not have it in your Bookshelf?



It _is_ in my bookshelf. I paid for it and I just downloaded the update yesterday. I can forward the paypal receipt to you if you'd like.


----------



## Morrus

amaril said:
			
		

> It _is_ in my bookshelf. I paid for it and I just downloaded the update yesterday. I can forward the paypal receipt to you if you'd like.




No, no, that's not necessary!  I'm not trying to suggest anything.


----------



## Kristian Serrano

Morrus said:
			
		

> No, no, that's not necessary!  I'm not trying to suggest anything.



Now I'm concerned. What gave the impression that it wasn't in my bookshelf? Is there a glitch in the system? Was it something I posted that was misinterpreted?


----------



## Morrus

amaril said:
			
		

> Now I'm concerned. What gave the impression that it wasn't in my bookshelf? Is there a glitch in the system? Was it something I posted that was misinterpreted?




No, but you don't appear to _have_ a bookshelf - there's no link to it under your avatar in your posts, and it doesn't appear in your profile.  I'm presuming it's because you've elected to hide your bookshelf?

Honestly, no biggie!  Nothing to be concerned about.


----------



## Kristian Serrano

Morrus said:
			
		

> No, but you don't appear to _have_ a bookshelf - there's no link to it under your avatar in your posts, and it doesn't appear in your profile.  I'm presuming it's because you've elected to hide your bookshelf?



Truthfully, I don't even know where that setting is.


----------



## DrSpunj

Alright, just got back from a couple days of vacation and downloaded the updated version. Morrus, these are *very* streamlined and easy to use! Thank you! (I sincerely hope my players will approve of them so we can ditch the Core rules for all of the special maneuvers.)

A few questions though:

Improved Bullrush talks about moving into the defender's space, however there's no similar section in the Hold attack section. If the attacker's Hold is successful do both combatants remain in their original spaces? I'm getting a picture of Sumo wrestlers here, if so. 
If not, who moves? And if it's the attacker moving into the defender's space, they could induce a movement-related AoO from nearby foes, which is different than "provoking an AoO from anyone other than your target simply by attempting an unarmed attack" as described at the top of page 3. 
Either way, you list the penalties applied for someone who is held when being attacked by opponents other than the one grappling them, but are not explicit about any possibility of randomly hitting one of the other combatants either in melee or with ranged weapons. The PHB describes the latter while other systems (namely Iron Heroes) describe the former. Just looking for a clarification here, really.
Depends on the first answer above, but if opponents share a space when one is holding the other, and the individual being held breaks free (of all holds, if multiple), do either get any kind of immediate movement so they aren't sharing a space any longer? Or are they just forced apart when one of their initiatives comes up?
If someone is successfully held, you describe their -4 to AC to other opponents and delineate their options for attacking with a light weapon or natural attack at a -4 penalty, or unarmed strikes without penalty. They also can't use two weapons. However, it's not clear to me whether they can use those options only against the person(s) holding them, or whether they could choose to attack foes outside the grapple but within range. It's very cinematic to have the hero being held in a choke hold by one opponent and being unable to shake him loose before another foe comes up to join the fun; the hero kicks the new guy away before throwing the holder off of him. 

I admit, it's mentally a bit difficult for me to "turn off" the Core rules and the IH rules we've been using more recently, but running through a few sample combats led me to these questions above. Sorry if I've missed the answers to some/all of my questions if they're already addressed in your text (though I'd still appreciate knowing exactly where I missed them).

I think a handful of quick examples would go a long way to pointing out how simple this system is. Using Archie, Biff & Clyde at the end of each manuever section would go pretty quick, and the fact that all the paragraphs would be really short is another testament to how easy these rules are to use. 

Thanks.


----------



## Morrus

Ooops, sorry DrSpunj - didn't notice your post there!  I'll answer your questions a little later (I'm just putting together the supplemental monster abillities page).


----------



## Morrus

OK, here goes!



			
				DrSpunj said:
			
		

> Improved Bullrush talks about moving into the defender's space, however there's no similar section in the Hold attack section. If the attacker's Hold is successful do both combatants remain in their original spaces? I'm getting a picture of Sumo wrestlers here, if so.




They remain in their own squares, just like any melee combatats do.  If you think about it, two sword-fighters would be circling each other, etc. - but the rules abstract that out and don't deal with it.  In the same way, these rules just "assume" there's all sorts of wriggling about and funky stuff going on.  

This pretty much means I don't need to answer half your questions now. 




> Either way, you list the penalties applied for someone who is held when being attacked by opponents other than the one grappling them, but are not explicit about any possibility of randomly hitting one of the other combatants either in melee or with ranged weapons. The PHB describes the latter while other systems (namely Iron Heroes) describe the former. Just looking for a clarification here, really.




I didn't, no - I've never really liked that because it doesn't mesh with the lack of such a rule for shooting someone in regular melee.  While I appreciate a mistake would be more likely when grappling rather than in regular melee, the mechanic simply doesn't exist for regular melee.  It's -4 to hit, if you fail, you miss.  

In the long run, I don't see that adding that adds to the game particularly; and it adds yet another die roll.  



> If someone is successfully held, you describe their -4 to AC to other opponents and delineate their options for attacking with a light weapon or natural attack at a -4 penalty, or unarmed strikes without penalty. They also can't use two weapons. However, it's not clear to me whether they can use those options only against the person(s) holding them, or whether they could choose to attack foes outside the grapple but within range. It's very cinematic to have the hero being held in a choke hold by one opponent and being unable to shake him loose before another foe comes up to join the fun; the hero kicks the new guy away before throwing the holder off of him.




You can use attacks against someone outside the grapple, so your cinematic situation is perfectly viable.

Basically, it's all a lot less harsh on the grapplers now - in the interests of smooth play and cool, cinematic combat.  

Hope all that helped!


----------



## LordMelquiades

Hi Morrus

Thank you so much for this!  No matter how many times I have to adjudicate grappling, I can never remember how the rules work... and now I can!

Some questions:

1. In movies and the like, two dudes are grappling with one another, right?  Let's call then The Goon and Steve Austin.  Steve grabs The Goon's knife and stabs him.  The Goon is not seriously hurt, but shouts in pain and drops the grapple.  Maybe dealing any sort of damage when held should cause your opponent to drop his grapple?  Or create a chance to cause the grapple to end (eg force the wounded Goon to make another grapple attack, at a penalty based on the damage received)?  Maybe this over-complicates things, which I Do Not Want To Happen!

2. Instead of the standard Trip rules, you suggest we use your Throw rules.  Cool.  Does the standard 'Tipping with a Weapon' rules still apply (no AoO, and you can drop the weapon to avoid the 'reflected trip'; although I guess there is no such thing as the 'reflected trip' anymore)?

3. Overrun has become like a knockdown--choice!


----------



## DrSpunj

Morrus said:
			
		

> They remain in their own squares, just like any melee combatats do.  If you think about it, two sword-fighters would be circling each other, etc. - but the rules abstract that out and don't deal with it.  In the same way, these rules just "assume" there's all sorts of wriggling about and funky stuff going on.




Fair enough, and I certainly don't mind hand-waving some abstract stuff with these rules. As you say, the Core rules do that all over the place in other ways.

That said, my mind always tries to visualize the action (hence my cinematic concern  ) and I can easily see a Strike being no different than any other melee attack while a Throw occurs when someone gets close enough to push the other one off balance. Sticking to your own squares there makes a lot of sense. With one person literally Holding another, though, I can't move past the visual images of the two Sumo wrestlers leaning against each other with their hands locked around each others heads.

But that's my issue, not yours, and I'll get over it (eventually  ).
I just wanted to make sure I was understanding your rules correctly as you were seeing them.



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> This pretty much means I don't need to answer half your questions now.




Ha! Yeah, I figured that might be the case.



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> Basically, it's all a lot less harsh on the grapplers now - in the interests of smooth play and cool, cinematic combat.
> 
> Hope all that helped!




It certainly does, and thanks for taking the time to answer & clarify. It's very much appreciated. And thanks for the coupon for the Advanced Students sequel, which I'm going to go get now!


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

DrSpunj, if you watch Ultimate Fighter Championship, you will see that Sumo wrestlers are not the only style that gets into holds while the fighters legs are quite a distance apart 

Maybe that can help you get over the visual.


----------



## Morrus

LordMelquiades said:
			
		

> 1. In movies and the like, two dudes are grappling with one another, right?  Let's call then The Goon and Steve Austin.  Steve grabs The Goon's knife and stabs him.  The Goon is not seriously hurt, but shouts in pain and drops the grapple.  Maybe dealing any sort of damage when held should cause your opponent to drop his grapple?  Or create a chance to cause the grapple to end (eg force the wounded Goon to make another grapple attack, at a penalty based on the damage received)?  Maybe this over-complicates things, which I Do Not Want To Happen!




It's an idea, certainly.  I also envisage this being useful when a character is held in a giant squid's tentacle or somesuch - they often seem to stab the tentacle to get free.  I think I'll write that into the next update.  Good thinking!



> 2. Instead of the standard Trip rules, you suggest we use your Throw rules.  Cool.  Does the standard 'Tipping with a Weapon' rules still apply (no AoO, and you can drop the weapon to avoid the 'reflected trip'; although I guess there is no such thing as the 'reflected trip' anymore)?




That's right - no reflected trip.


----------



## LordMelquiades

Morrus said:
			
		

> That's right - no reflected trip.




Righty.  So, the only benefit now of using a weapon to trip/throw is that you do not provoke an AoO, is that correct?  Which, I must say, seems benefit enough to me to still make it worthwhile.


----------



## Morrus

LordMelquiades said:
			
		

> Righty.  So, the only benefit now of using a weapon to trip/throw is that you do not provoke an AoO, is that correct?  Which, I must say, seems benefit enough to me to still make it worthwhile.




Yep, that's right.


----------



## LordMelquiades

Thanks Morrus--loving it...


----------



## LordMelquiades

Hey Morrus

Two more questions from me, I hope I'm not revealing my stupidity here...    

1. You state 







			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> While held, you may make attacks with a light weapon or a natural weapon, although you suffer a -4 penalty on such attacks.



  Does this apply to the grappler who has applied the hold (as well as the victim of the hold)?

2. In a Bull Rush situation, you say moving into the defender’s space 







			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> provokes an attack of opportunity from the defender. (If you have the Improved Bull Rush feat, you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender; note that, as a change from the core rules, this does not provoke an attack of opportunity from anyone other than the defender.)



  Do you mean that by having the Improved Bull Rush feat a character does not provoke an attack of opportunity from anyone other than the defender, or that in all cases, attempting a Bull Rush using these rules does not provoke an attack of opportunity from anyone other than the defender?

Thanks!


----------



## Morrus

LordMelquiades said:
			
		

> 1. You state   Does this apply to the grappler who has applied the hold (as well as the victim of the hold)?




Yes.  bad phrasing on my part.  Replace "held" with "grappling".



> 2. In a Bull Rush situation, you say moving into the defender’s space   Do you mean that by having the Improved Bull Rush feat a character does not provoke an attack of opportunity from anyone other than the defender, or that in all cases, attempting a Bull Rush using these rules does not provoke an attack of opportunity from anyone other than the defender?




The latter!


----------



## LordMelquiades

Thanks Morrus.  These rules are great, and I am definitely going to use them.  I think for my application of them though, I am going to absorb your Press Hold feat into the existing Improved Grapple feat (ie, add those benefits to Improved Grapple), and the Great Throw feat benefit into Improved Trip.  I have a personal preference against introducing new feats unless they are absolutely necessary.  But otherwise, great work, and thanks, and you should get the gig working on 4E!


----------



## bertman4

*more feats?*

Just purchased this and read through it. Very nice. I had a question. What about a feat to make Throws more effective? I'm thinking specifically of throws in Aikido and Judo where by the thrower directs where the throwee is to land. In game mechanic terms, the thrown opponent lands in a spot other than the square they started in. Hmm... perhaps something similar to the Directed Bull Rush ability of Shock Trooper feat from Complete Warrior.

Bertman


----------



## Zoatebix

So my friends and I ran some numbers on trying to throw giants and other really big things, and we found that it is much easier to Hold or Throw something using your rules than it is to grapple with or trip something in the core rules.  This is because One's Morrus Grapple Bonus includes one's BAB, whereas one's Grapple AC does not, unlike the core opposed grapple check which includes both side's BAB.  This discrepancy occurs with throw/ v. trip  as well, the attacker now gets his BAB to a roll that used to be an opposed ability check (with special size modifiers).  

I'm not sure if this discrepancy is a bug or a feature, but a 10th level character tricked out in tripping knocking over a Titan with a decent chance of success (and I've I lost my note paper on this) seems kind of wonky.  Initiative becomes much more important in grappling for beginners because it's so much easier to get a hold or a throw result as you go up in level.

The touch attack before tripping or grappling in the core rules is really just a formality after a certain level, except against wonkily exceptional opponents.  Your system makes the "wasted" touch attack matter again, in a way...

Anyways, I think we can keep the one roll simplicity of your system and also have results that mesh with the core rules if BAB gets added to one's Grapple AC.

-George Austin

P.S. A minor tweak that would give gnomes and halflings a better chance and that would also remove a step from calculating Grapple ACs would be to add the better of either one's STR or DEX modifier to Grapple AC, rather than both.


----------



## Morrus

bertman4 said:
			
		

> Just purchased this and read through it. Very nice. I had a question. What about a feat to make Throws more effective? I'm thinking specifically of throws in Aikido and Judo where by the thrower directs where the throwee is to land. In game mechanic terms, the thrown opponent lands in a spot other than the square they started in. Hmm... perhaps something similar to the Directed Bull Rush ability of Shock Trooper feat from Complete Warrior.
> 
> Bertman




There are some in the sequel, Grappling for Advanced Students.  



> I'm not sure if this discrepancy is a bug or a feature, but a 10th level character tricked out in tripping knocking over a Titan with a decent chance of success (and I've I lost my note paper on this) seems kind of wonky.




Feature - 10th level characters can do a lot of superhuman things.  The system allows you to describe it how you want - but there are plenty of ways I can imagine a 10th level character rendering a giant sized opponent prone.  Heck, maybe you tied his shoelaces together!


----------



## Zoatebix

*Against the Titan*

Here's an illustration of problem:

The relevant stats for a titan: Grapple AC 34, Grapple attack +44, Touch AC 8, STR check to avoid trip +24.

I think we can see from the fact that the Titan's grapple modifier is 10 higher than its grapple AC that Morrus' system skews heavily in favor of the attacker, but let's contiue with this example

Let's suppose a 10th level figher with 22STR.  He started with 16 - just a little nudge from the elite array, and has +4 from a belt and +2 for the ability increases at 4th and 8th level.  He also has the improved trip feat, for a total modifier to his tripping check of +20.

Under the core rules, his chance to hit the giant is a compound probability problem.  I'll keep the math in parentheses.

First, the fighter must hit the Touch AC, which means not rolling a 1.
(.95 times the sum of...)
Next, the opposed roll - the Fighter succeeds if:
The titan rolls 1 and the fighter rolls 16-20 (.05*.25 or .0125 plus)
The titan rolls 2 and the fighter rolls 17-20 (.05*.20 or .01 plus)
The titan rolls 3 and the fighter rolls 18-20 (.05*.15 or .0075 plus)
The titan rolls 4 and the fighter rolls 19-20 (.05*.10 or .005 plus)
The titan rolls 5 and the fighter rolls 20 (.05*.05 or .0025)

... which comes to a little more than a 3 and a half per cent chance of success.



Under the *Grappling for Beginners* rules, the Fighter succeeds 35% of the time - on a roll of 14 or higher.

However, my proposed revision (adding BAB to the Grapple AC) doesn't preserve the minute chance that the fighter has in the core rules - he can't hope to hit the Titan's grapple AC of 54.

If we go back to an opposed roll system but eliminate the touch attack, the fighter still has no chance against the Titan, but it does increase the range of situations where the underdog has a shot.  If we pick an example Giant or another big creature with a CR closer to 10, the GfB rules still give the Fighter a much better chance of knocking things down than they get in the core.

Many thanks to my friend Tom for noticing how the GfB rules favor the attacker significantly.


----------



## Zoatebix

Morrus said:
			
		

> Feature - 10th level characters can do a lot of superhuman things.  The system allows you to describe it how you want - but there are plenty of ways I can imagine a 10th level character rendering a giant sized opponent prone.  Heck, maybe you tied his shoelaces together!




Point taken!

The thing that my GM noticed in play when we started using your rules was that my character would have to roll a 1 to fail when tripping some strongish medium creatures, whereas they had a fighting chance (+6 them vs +13 me) under the core rules.


----------



## Morrus

One thing to remember is that, in normal combat, attack bonuses and ACs don't increase at the same rate, either.  It's one of the things often noted about the combat system - the two get slowly further apart as you gain levels, AC lagging behind.  

Since this system was designed to being grappling "in line" with the regular combat system, that places it firmly in the "feature" department, in my mind.  To address that issue, you need to address it as a whole across D&D, not just here.


----------

